Halfacre v. Kelley
2016 Ark. 71
| Ark. | 2016Background
- Appellant Kenny Halfacre, a pro se inmate, sought permission from the circuit court to proceed in forma pauperis on a habeas corpus petition.
- The circuit court issued an order denying the in forma pauperis petition that contained a handwritten date but was not file-marked; the petition itself also lacked a file mark in the record tendered on appeal.
- The circuit clerk categorized the filings as “unfiled inmate pleadings” and did not assign a docket number; nonetheless Halfacre filed a timely notice of appeal (file‑marked August 14, 2015).
- The circuit court later file‑marked and entered an order granting in forma pauperis for the appeal on August 27, 2015.
- Halfacre moved this Court for a rule on the clerk to remedy the defective record and to have the circuit clerk file‑mark and transmit the missing certified documents.
- The Supreme Court of Arkansas concluded the missing file‑marked order and pleadings prevented proper appellate consideration and remanded for supplementation of the record with certified, file‑marked copies (including the habeas petition and the order denying the in forma pauperis petition).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Halfacre established good cause for failure to perfect the record | Halfacre argued the clerk refused to file‑mark the order and related pleadings, preventing a perfected record | The circuit clerk’s position (implicit) was that filings were unfiled inmate pleadings and thus not entered | Court held Halfacre showed good cause because the clerk’s refusal to file‑mark prevented perfection |
| Whether appellate jurisdiction existed despite missing file‑marked order | Halfacre relied on his timely notice of appeal to vest jurisdiction | The absence of a file‑marked order impeded appellate review of the denial of IFP | Court held timely notice conferred jurisdiction but ordered record supplementation because a file‑marked order is required for review |
| Whether the record must be supplemented with certified file‑marked pleadings | Halfacre argued the habeas petition and related filings were material to the IFP determination and must be certified | Implicit counter: submitted record lacked those file‑marked documents | Court held the record must be supplemented with certified, file‑marked order and pleadings relevant to the IFP determination |
| Whether the circuit court/clerk may use procedures that prevent indigent litigants from appealing | Halfacre argued such procedures improperly block appeals by indigent petitioners | State interest in docketing procedures cannot override right to appeal | Court held circuit courts may not implement procedures that prevent timely appeals by indigent petitioners and ordered corrective action |
Key Cases Cited
- Smith v. Estate of Howell, 372 Ark. 186 (timely notice of appeal confers appellate jurisdiction)
- Clemons v. State, 2014 Ark. 454 (burden on appellant, even pro se, to show good cause for procedural failures)
- Gore v. Heartland, 356 Ark. 665 (appellate court or circuit court may correct and supplement the record)
- Leavy v. Norris, 324 Ark. 346 (right to appeal adverse ruling on postconviction relief/habeas corpus)
- White v. State, 373 Ark. 415 (circuit court cannot use procedures that prevent indigent petitioners from filing timely appeals)
- Stanley v. Coomer, 2014 Ark. 338 (determination of IFP depends on whether underlying action is colorable)