ARKANSAS SUPREME COURT

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

OCTOBER 23, 2003

DAVID HUGH WILLIAMS

            Appellant

v.

KAY WADE, GREG HARMON, AND RAY HOBBS

            Appellees

03-573

PRO SE MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION TO MAKE CERTAIN CORRECTIONS IN APPELLANT’S BRIEF -IN-CHIEF [CIRCUIT COURT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY, NO. CV 02-521-5]

MOTION DENIED  

Per Curiam

            David Hugh Williams, an inmate of the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC), filed a pro se action in circuit court pursuant to 

the Arkansas Civil Rights Act, Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101, et seq, alleging that three employees of the ADC had violated the act. The 

complaint was dismissed in all respects except for the provision that Williams be allowed to receive any religious documents permitted by the 

ADC’s regulations. Williams appealed to this court from the adverse ruling and has filed his brief-in-chief and a reply brief.

            In the instant motion, appellant Williams contends that the brief-in-chief contains a “poorly put together addendum and brief of appellant with numerous errors” because the department forced him to submit it before it was in full compliance with this court’s rules. He asks that we order the ADC to make certain corrections to the brief, or in the alternative, to allow him access to a typewriter or word-processor so that he can prepare his own briefs “as most of the errors are in typing....”

            The motion is denied. The appellee has not moved to strike the brief-in-chief and has filed its brief addressing the issues raised by appellant in the brief. Appellant has not demonstrated that any error contained in it would prevent the full consideration of the points for reversal.

            Moreover, appellant’s attempt to fault the ADC for errors contained in his brief erroneously places the responsibility for complying with this court’s procedural rules on the ADC rather than the appellant. This court will not issue orders that have the effect of controlling the day-to-day operation of the Arkansas Department of Correction. If appellant is of the belief that personnel of the Department have failed to perform some duty which should have been performed, he may raise the issue at the ADC through the procedure set up to address grievances.

            Motion denied.