{
  "id": 8721496,
  "name": "Roosevelt HAYES v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hayes v. Lockhart",
  "decision_date": "1986-03-24",
  "docket_number": "86-10",
  "first_page": "419",
  "last_page": "420",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "288 Ark. 419"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "706 S.W.2d 179"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "288 Ark. 417",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721474
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0417-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 Ark. 92",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8717601
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0092-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 120,
    "char_count": 1251,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.924,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.965398975963426e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8498981986980708
    },
    "sha256": "0b86e6bb4a37958d191f6162f7d0ec5c3352d74856561f18b0a77cbc9c95a692",
    "simhash": "1:51cf167cd02741a9",
    "word_count": 211
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:45:27.788923+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Roosevelt HAYES v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn 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.\nThe 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).\nIf the lack of a typewriter is hindering appellant\u2019s 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.\nMotion denied.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Roosevelt HAYES v. A.L. LOCKHART, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction\n86-10\n706 S.W.2d 179\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 24, 1986\nAppellant, pro se.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0419-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 454
}