# Brown v. Sachar

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · September 5, 2013 · 2013 Ark. 319

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1039932

## Case

- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 5, 2013
- **Citations:** 2013 Ark. 319
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Per Curiam
- **Cited by:** 6 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1039932

## Opinion text

Cite as 2013 Ark. 319

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-13-441

Opinion Delivered September 5, 2013

PRO SE MOTION TO PROCEED IN
LOUIS DUDLEY BROWN FORMA PAUPERIS [JUDICIAL
PETITIONER DISCIPLINE AND DISABILITY
COMMISSION, COMPLAINT NO.
v. 13144]
DAVID J. SACHAR, DIRECTOR,
JUDICIAL DISCIPLINE AND MOTION DENIED.
DISABILITY COMMISSION
RESPONDENT

PER CURIAM

Petitioner Louis Dudley Brown filed a complaint with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline

and Disability Commission (Commission) against the circuit court judge who presided at his trial

in a criminal matter. The complaint was dismissed on March 14, 2013. Petitioner has tendered

a petition for writ of certiorari for review by this court of the Commission’s dismissal of the

complaint pursuant to Discipline and Disability Rule 12(H) (2013). On May 22, 2013, petitioner

filed the instant motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, seeking to file the petition for

writ of certiorari without paying the required filing fee.

A complaint filed with the Commission is a civil matter. Rule 72 of the Arkansas Rules

of Civil Procedure conditions the right to proceed in forma pauperis in civil matters upon,

among other things, the court’s satisfaction that the alleged facts indicate a colorable cause of

action. Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410, 12 S.W.3d 201 (2000) (per curiam). A colorable cause

of action is a claim that is legitimate and may reasonably be asserted given the facts presented
Cite as 2013 Ark. 319

and the current law or a reasonable and logical extension or modification of it. Id. Petitioner

has not demonstrated such a claim here. Where no fundamental right is involved, filing fees do

not violate due process. Partin v. Bar of Ark., 320 Ark. 37, 894 S.W.2d 906 (1995).

In his motion, petitioner contends only that he is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

because he is unable to pay the costs associated with the proceeding and the petition is not

brought for a frivolous or malicious purpose. The statement does not constitute a showing of

a colorable cause of action.

Petitioner is responsible for remitting the required filing fee at his expense within thirty

days of the date of this opinion if he desires to proceed with the tendered petition for writ of

certiorari. See Young v. Black, 366 Ark. 198, 234 S.W.3d 284 (2006) (per curiam).

Motion denied.

Louis Dudley Brown, pro se petitioner.

No response.

2

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/1039932. Public record. Not legal advice.