Grant v. Reynolds (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2014 Ark. 100 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-107 Opinion Delivered ABRAHAM GRANT PETITIONER v. VERA REYNOLDS, LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT CLERK RESPONDENT February 27, 2014 PRO SE MOTION FOR RULE ON CLERK [LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, NO. UNKNOWN] MOTION DENIED. PER CURIAM On January 22, 2014, petitioner Abraham Grant tendered to this court a pro se motion for rule on the Lincoln County Circuit Clerk, alleging that the circuit clerk had failed to perform some duty. As the motion pertained to the circuit clerk, and not the clerk of this court, it was returned to petitioner so that he could proceed with it in circuit court. See Willis v. Circuit Clerk of Sebastian County, 2009 Ark. 515 (per curiam) (A motion for rule on circuit clerk alleging a failure of the clerk to perform a duty was returned to be filed in the circuit court in which the respondent was serving as circuit clerk.). On January 23, 2014, petitioner tendered an amendment to the motion for rule on circuit clerk that was also returned to him. Now before us is petitioner s pro se motion for rule on the clerk of this court, asking that we direct our clerk to file the motion and amended motion here. The motion for rule on our clerk was not accompanied by a certified record of any proceeding in circuit court. The motion is denied. The circuit court has jurisdiction to consider a claim that its clerk should perform a particular duty. See Willis, 2009 Ark. 515. Petitioner has failed to establish that there is any basis for this court to assume jurisdiction of the matter. Motion denied. Abraham Grant, pro se petitioner. No response.
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.
