ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
 

OCTOBER 16, 2003

BILLY MACK NICHOLS

Appellant

v.

GREG HARMON, WARDEN

Appellee

02-567

PRO SE MOTION TO AMEND ORIGINAL BRIEF, MOTION FOR FINDINGS DISCLOSURE, AND MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, CR CV 2002-290-5]

MOTIONS DENIED; SUBSTITUTED BRIEF DUE IN FIFTEEN DAYS

Per Curiam

Billy Mack Nichols, who is in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction, filed a civil complaint against the warden at the prison unit where he is incarcerated. The complaint was denied, and the record on appeal from the order has been lodged here.

Appellant's brief did not comply with our rules regarding abstracting the record, and he was directed to submit a substituted brief. Nichols v. Harmon, 02-567 (Ark. March 20, 2003) (per curiam). Appellant then sought an extension of time to file the substituted brief which was granted. Nichols v. Harmon, 02-567 (May 29, 2003).

Appellant tendered the substituted brief, but it was returned to him for correction because it was handwritten and not in the form of a brief. Instead of tendering a corrected brief, appellant filed the instant motion asking to be permitted to amend the original brief rather than submit a substituted brief. He has tendered a copy of the order from which the appeal is taken and asks that it be added to the original brief and that the original brief be accepted with that addition.

The motion to amend the original brief is denied. The original brief lacked an abstract of the material parts of the record as required by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2002). The addition of a copy of the order from which the appeal is taken to the original brief would not cure the defect. Appellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (8). See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). If appellant fails to file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief within the prescribed time, the order may be affirmed for failure to comply with the rule. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).

Appellant has also filed a "motion for findings disclosure" in which he asks that this court explain specifically in what ways the original brief was found deficient. He further states his belief that the original was adequate. As stated, the original brief lacked the abstract required. Therefore, it was not in compliance with our rules. Further explanation of the deficiencies in the brief is not required inasmuch as an appellant may read the rules which set out what is required for a conforming brief.

Appellant also asks that counsel be appointed to represent him on appeal. This is a civil matter, and there is no absolute right to appointment of counsel in civil matters. See Virgin v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 92, 702 S.W.2d 9 (1986). We have held, however, that if an appellant makes a substantial showing that he is entitled to relief in a postconviction appeal and that he cannot proceed without counsel, we will appoint counsel. See Howard v. Lockhart, 300 Ark. 144, 777 S.W.2d 223 (1989). As appellant makes no statement that the appeal has merit, he has failed to establish that there is substantial merit to the appeal; accordingly, the motion for appointment of counsel is denied.

Motions denied; substituted brief due in fifteen days.