Hayes v. Lockhart
This text of 706 S.W.2d 179 (Hayes v. Lockhart) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
In this motion appellant, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction, requests appointment of counsel to represent him in the appeal of the denial of a civil motion for declaratory judgment against the Director of the Department of Correction. He bases his motion for counsel on the unavailability of typewriters at the prison, which precludes his submitting a typed brief as required by our rules.
The motion is denied. The appeal is civil in nature, and there is no absolute right to counsel in a civil action. Virgin v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 92, 702 S.W.2d 9 (1986).
If the lack of a typewriter is hindering appellant’s access to this Court, he may seek permission to proceed pro se with a handwritten brief. As we said in Glick v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 417, 706 S.W.2d 178 (1986), which was also decided today, permission to file a handwritten brief will be granted upon proper motion if appellant makes a substantial showing that his suit has merit and that he is unable to submit a typed brief.
Motion denied.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
706 S.W.2d 179, 288 Ark. 419, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hayes-v-lockhart-ark-1986.