Karen R. Baker, Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court v. Marty Sullivan, Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts

2017 Ark. 17

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: March 6, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 17 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-47

Opinion Delivered: March 6, 2025

KAREN BAKER, CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT ORDER TO SUPPLEMENT THE V. RECORD.

MARTY SULLIVAN, DIRECTOR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS

PER CURIAM

Karen Baker, Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court, filed an original action

titled “Notice of Appeal and Motion to Dismiss.” Chief Justice Baker’s filing challenges

“the findings and recommendations set forth in” a human-resources report issued by the

Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC). She asks the court to dismiss this matter for

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, to invalidate the AOC’s harassment policy, and to

conclude that “the evidence is insufficient to support a finding of ‘harassment,’ by any

definition.” On the latter point, Chief Justice Baker’s filing repeatedly “denies the [report’s]

characterizations of her interactions with AOC employees when visiting the AOC offices”

and argues that, upon a complete review, “there would be no doubt that the visits were for

completely legitimate reasons.” Chief Justice Baker, however, has not filed the report that she challenges, and absent

that report, it is impossible to conduct the review that Chief Justice Baker seeks. See Ark.

Dep’t of Hum. Servs. v. A.B., 374 Ark. 193, 200, 286 S.W.3d 712, 717 (2008) (“[I]n making

the substantial-evidence determination, we review the entire record . . . .”) (emphasis added).

In original actions, the challenged findings are attached to the pleadings as exhibits or, if

filed separately, an addendum. See Cowles v. Thurston, CV-24-455 (Ark. July 16, 2024)

(petitioners’ original action complaint); McGill v. Thurston, CV-24-292 (Ark. Aug. 1, 2024)

(petitioners’ original action complaint). Likewise, if the matter was intended as an

administrative appeal, then a record is required. See Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5(a). Nor is it

possible in this instance for us to determine our jurisdiction without any such material. See

Bayird v. Floyd, 2009 Ark. 455, at 3, 344 S.W.3d 80, 83 (citing Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a))

(explaining that appellate courts only review final orders and without a final order we have

no jurisdiction).

Accordingly, to conduct the review that Chief Justice Baker urges, we order her to

file the omitted material, including all complaints and the underlying human-resources

report whose findings and recommendations she challenges. Thomas v. Avant, 369 Ark. 211,

212, 252 S.W.3d 135, 136 (2007) (“[P]ursuant to Rule 6(e), this court can sua sponte direct

the parties to supply any omitted material by filing a certified, supplemental record.”). Chief

Justice Baker is directed to do so on or before noon on Tuesday, March 11, 2025, redacted

to exclude nonparty names or identification.1 If necessary, Marty Sullivan may supplement

1 No extensions to these deadlines will be entertained.

2 the material provided by Chief Justice Baker on or before noon on Friday, March 14, 2025,

redacted to exclude non-party names or identification.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BAKER, C.J., and HUDSON, J., not participating.