Hall v. Hudson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
No.
09-66
Opinion Delivered
May 7, 2009
PRO SE MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF DENIAL OF
MOTION FOR CERTIFIED COPIES
[CIRCUIT COURT OF MILLER
COUNTY, CV 2004-285]
TOMMY HALL
Petitioner
v.
JIM HUDSON, CIRCUIT JUDGE
Respondent
MOTION DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Tommy Hall filed in this court a pro se petition for writ of mandamus against the
Honorable Jim Hudson, Circuit Judge, alleging that Judge Hudson had failed to act in a timely
manner on a motion to amend the judgment in a civil matter.1 Judge Hudson filed a response
attaching a copy of a letter order that disposed of the request to amend, and this court declared the
motion moot. Hall v. Hudson, 09-66 (Ark. Feb. 12, 2009) (per curiam). Petitioner filed a motion
in this court seeking certified copies of documents from the record in that case to perfect an appeal
from the order denying the motion to amend that we denied. Hall v. Hudson, 09-66 (Ark. Mar. 19,
2009) (per curiam). Now petitioner has filed the instant motion in which he seeks reconsideration
of that decision. He contends that he is indigent and asserts that the circuit clerk refuses to provide
him with certified copies of the documents.
Our denial of petitioner’s motion, in which petitioner requested that this court remove
1
Judge Hudson passed away on May 3, 2009.
documents from the record and return those documents to him or transfer the documents to another
appeal, was not based upon costs associated with the request or petitioner’s ability to pay such costs.
Rather, the decision was based upon petitioner’s failure to provide a procedural basis for this court
to comply with his request. To the extent that petitioner may contend that the circuit clerk has
incorrectly refused to provide the documents he desires because he is a pauper, the allegations
concerning a breach of duty by the circuit clerk must be addressed to the circuit court.
We note that in the event that an appellant is delayed in filing a criminal appeal, in some
circumstances, he or she may seek to bring the appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Criminal 2(e), which provides a remedy when a litigant has failed to comply with the time
requirements imposed by the rules governing criminal appeals. No comparable rule exists to perfect
an appeal in civil cases such as this. See Childers v. Ark. Dep’t of Human Servs., 360 Ark. 517, 202
S.W.3d 529 (2005) (per curiam). This court recognizes only limited circumstances where a right to
appeal is implicated, as in Childers, or under the most extraordinary circumstances in other cases,
where an exception may be appropriate. See Waste Mgmt. & Transp. Ins. Co. v. Estridge, 363 Ark.
42, 210 S.W.3d 869 (2005).
Petitioner did not, and has not now, provided any procedural basis upon which to grant his
request. Because petitioner has failed to demonstrate good cause to reconsider our previous decision,
his motion is denied.
Motion denied.
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
