571 S.W.3d 39
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Abdul Muhummad, an Arkansas DOC inmate and self‑taught jailhouse lawyer, had legal papers removed from his cell for exceeding allowed storage; prison policy permits limited storage of nonactive legal materials and access via an inmate request system.
- Abdul exhausted prison grievance procedures (denied at unit level and on appeal) and filed a writ of replevin on May 11, 2017 seeking return of the items.
- Warden Danny Burl moved to dismiss; the trial court dismissed the replevin petition for failure to state a claim on November 30, 2017; Abdul did not appeal that dismissal.
- On February 8, 2018 Abdul wrote the circuit clerk requesting a copy of his court file (he did not seek an order directing return of the seized items); on March 12, 2018 (over 90 days after dismissal) he moved to amend/supplement the dismissed replevin complaint to add later incidents and a conversion claim.
- The trial court ruled on March 16, 2018 that Abdul was not entitled to free copies of the file (could obtain copies at statutory per‑page cost) and that his motion to amend was untimely because more than 90 days had passed since dismissal.
- Abdul appealed, arguing (1) he should receive free copies at public expense because prison officials impermissibly seized his files, and (2) the court abused its discretion by refusing to allow amendment/supplementation and relation back under Rule 15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to free copies of court file | Abdul: Prison seized his documents; without free copies he cannot prosecute his claims and so should receive copies at public expense | State/Warden: No showing of entitlement; inmate may obtain copies by remitting statutory per‑page fee; no compelling need or indigence shown | Court: No clear error in denying free copies; Abdul may purchase copies at established per‑page cost |
| Jurisdiction to amend dismissed complaint after 90 days | Abdul: Subsequent incidents are related and should be allowed to be added; relation‑back under Rule 15 should permit amendment | Warden: Motion filed more than 90 days after dismissal; trial court lacks jurisdiction to set aside or modify under Rule 60 after 90 days | Court: Motion filed >90 days after dismissal; trial court lacked jurisdiction to act; denial of motion to amend/supplement affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Centennial Bank, 553 S.W.3d 151 (Ark. Ct. App.) (standard for reviewing trial‑court factual findings)
- Scott v. State, 540 S.W.3d 279 (Ark. 2018) (incarcerated persons must remit photocopy fees unless court grants public‑expense copies)
- Moore v. State, 921 S.W.2d 606 (Ark.) (incarceratees generally bear cost of copying official records)
- Dye v. Diamante, 509 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. 2017) (trial court loses jurisdiction to set aside or modify under Rule 60 if not done within ninety days)
- Henson v. Wyatt, 283 S.W.3d 593 (Ark.) (clarifies Rule 60 time limitations and jurisdictional effect)
- Fulton v. Beacon Nat'l Ins. Co., 416 S.W.3d 759 (Ark. Ct. App.) (cited on standards but not relied on for substantive relief)
- Dale v. White, 545 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. Ct. App.) (procedural note on Rule 60 and deemed‑denied provisions)