Mitchell v. Post-Prison Transfer Bd.
2015 Ark. 140
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Robert Shawn Mitchell sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) to file a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record in a Pulaski County Circuit Court judicial-review matter.
- Circuit Judge Christopher Piazza denied Mitchell’s petition to proceed IFP on August 21, 2014; that petition and the order were not file-stamped or assigned a case number by the circuit clerk.
- Mitchell filed a notice of appeal; the notice was file-marked and assigned a miscellaneous docket number, but the underlying order was not file-marked.
- Mitchell tendered the appeal record to the Arkansas Supreme Court; the clerk rejected it because the record lacked a file-marked copy of the order from which he appealed.
- Mitchell filed a petition in the Supreme Court to proceed IFP for the motion for rule on clerk; the Supreme Court considered whether Mitchell demonstrated a colorable cause of action sufficient to allow IFP filing.
- The Supreme Court denied the IFP petition, instructed Mitchell to remit the filing fee within 30 days if he wished to proceed, and explained that an order is not effective (and thus not appealable) until it is file-marked per Rule 58 and Administrative Order No. 2.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Mitchell may proceed IFP to file a motion for rule on clerk to lodge the record | Mitchell: indigent and motion is not frivolous; therefore IFP relief is warranted | Respondent/court: IFP requires a colorable cause of action; indigency alone is insufficient | Denied — Mitchell failed to show a colorable cause of action; must pay the filing fee within 30 days to proceed |
| Whether there is an appealable order absent a clerk file-mark | Mitchell: appealed the denial of IFP (filed a notice of appeal) | Clerk/court: no effective order existed because the order was not file-marked or entered; thus nothing to appeal | Held that an order is not effective or appealable until stamped/filed by the clerk under Rule 58 and Admin. Order No. 2; oral orders are not effective until reduced to writing and filed |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Sachar, 2013 Ark. 319 (per curiam) (IFP in civil matters requires court satisfaction that the facts show a colorable cause of action; filing fees do not violate due process where no fundamental right is implicated)
- McGhee v. Ark. Bd. of Collection Agencies, 368 Ark. 60 (court clarifying that an oral order is not effective until reduced to writing and filed)