Pitts v. Drummond
2017 Ark. 146
Ark.2017Background
- Kenneth Ray Pitts, an inmate, sought to proceed in forma pauperis in Pulaski County Circuit Court on a civil complaint for money damages and injunctive relief; the trial court denied his IFP petition.
- Pitts appealed the denial and lodged a record in the Arkansas Supreme Court, then filed motions seeking appointment of counsel and to have the circuit clerk file‑mark his IFP petition and complaint.
- This court remanded for a supplemental record; after return, the court considered Pitts’s two motions.
- The court found the request to require the clerk to file‑mark the IFP petition moot because the appeal record was already lodged and the supplemental record returned.
- Pitts argued he could not proceed pro se because he is not a licensed attorney, that incarceration conditions impede his ability to meet briefing deadlines, and that counsel was necessary if an evidentiary hearing or oral argument were needed.
- The court noted there is no absolute right to appointed counsel in civil cases but will appoint counsel when an appellant shows both substantial merit and inability to proceed without counsel; Pitts made only conclusory assertions of merit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should order the circuit clerk to file‑mark Pitts’s IFP petition and declare him pauper on appeal | Pitts asked this court to direct the clerk to file his IFP petition and recognize pauper status | Appellees implicitly relied on the record and procedural posture; the court treated the request as moot given the lodged record | Moot — request denied as unnecessary because the appeal record was already lodged |
| Whether Pitts is entitled to appointment of counsel on appeal | Pitts said he cannot proceed pro se (not an attorney), incarceration limits his ability to meet deadlines, and counsel is needed for possible evidentiary proceedings | Appellees argued there is no right to appointed counsel in civil matters and Pitts provided no substantial showing of merit or inability to proceed | Denied as to appointment — Pitts failed to show substantial merit or inability to proceed without counsel |
| Whether pro se representation by Pitts is improper or fraudulent | Pitts claimed representing himself would be fraudulent/illegal because he is not a licensed attorney | Court noted pro se litigants may represent themselves and doing so is not fraudulent | Court rejected Pitts’s claim; pro se permissible and not fraudulent |
| Whether Pitts should receive extra time to file his brief | Pitts sought more time due to incarceration constraints | Appellees opposed or did not contest extension; court reviewed prior extension history | Granted an extension: pro se brief due 30 days from the date of the court’s order |
Key Cases Cited
- Preston v. Univ. of Ark. for Med. Scis., 354 Ark. 666, 128 S.W.3d 430 (2003) (pro se litigants may represent themselves and there is no automatic right to appointed counsel in civil cases)
- Ark. Bar Ass’n v. Union Nat’l Bank of Little Rock, 224 Ark. 48, 273 S.W.2d 408 (1954) (historical recognition that individuals may proceed pro se)