Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 549 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CV-19-933
EDDY ARNOLD APPELLANT
V.
DR. MARY PITTS, MR. MIKE DOYLE, BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF ARKANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY, AND DR. CARL CATES APPELLEES
Opinion Delivered December 9, 2020
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCV-18-731]
HONORABLE RICHARD LUSBY, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Chief Judge
Pro se appellant Eddy Arnold appeals from an order of the Craighead County Circuit
Court dismissing his complaints against appellees, the Board of Trustees of Arkansas State
University, Dr. Mary Pitts, Mike Doyle, and Dr. Carl Cates. We affirm.
This action originated on June 15, 2018, when Mr. Arnold filed a pro se complaint
for “libelous defamation of character” against the Board of Trustees of Arkansas State
University and two of its employees, Dr. Mary Pitts and Mike Doyle. On July 31, 2018,
these appellees moved to dismiss on the basis of sovereign immunity and failure to state facts
upon which relief could be granted. Mr. Arnold filed a motion to revise his complaint on
November 7, 2018, which he later moved to withdraw when he filed a subsequent motion
to revise his complaint on April 5, 2019. The April 5 motion sought to add Dr. Carl Cates
as a defendant; to revise the complaint title to “complaint for libelous defamation of
character and wrongful termination”; and to attach the motion to “Complaint # l6J CV-
18-731.” Also on April 5, Mr. Arnold filed a motion asking the circuit court to order to
Dr. Carl Cates to produce “a of copy of his 7/19/17 ‘agreement’ document, which was
snatched away from the plaintiff on 7/19/17.” On April 18, appellees filed a motion to
dismiss the revised complaint and brief in support, which also adopted and incorporated the
July 31, 2018 motion to dismiss and brief in support.
The court held a motions hearing on June 25. After hearing arguments from Mr.
Arnold and counsel for appellees, the circuit court took both the motion to dismiss and Mr.
Arnold’s motion regarding Dr. Cates under advisement, subject to appellees’ counsel’s
providing cases referenced in their argument to both the court and Mr. Arnold, who was
also invited to submit cases. On June 28, appellees filed a posthearing brief in support of
their motion to dismiss. Also on June 28, Mr. Arnold filed an amended complaint for
“libelous defamation and illegitimate termination” as well as a request for judicial notice,
providing that
[d]uring the 6/25/19 hearing, the plaintiff objected to the defendants’ mischaracterization of the complaint. Also, the defendants introduced new cases, which they had not provided in their pleadings. To correct that error, the court requested a copy of the defendants’ newly referenced cases, plus any additional cases by the plaintiff, to be submitted by 5PM on Friday, 6/28/19.
Consequently, the plaintiff integrated the additional cases into an amended complaint submitted today, concurrent with this request for judicial notice.
On July 2, appellees filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Arnold’s amended complaint filed on
June 28, to which Mr. Arnold filed a responsive pleading.
2
The court entered an order on August 23, 2019, dismissing Mr. Arnold’s complaint
and finding his motion in regard to Dr. Cates moot. In doing so, the circuit court recognized
appellees’ motion to dismiss filed after the motions hearing. The court wrote:
From the pleadings, motions, responses, briefs, statements, and arguments of plaintiff
and counsel for defendants, the court finds defendants’ motions to dismiss should be granted
for the reasons set forth herein. As the court finds that plaintiff’s complaint and revised or
amended complaints failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, plaintiff’s
Motion for Court Order to Dr. Carl Cates is denied as being moot.
In its six-page order, the circuit court explained its decision with citation to law. The
circuit court further explained that even if Mr. Arnold’s complaint had stated a claim, his
claims would have been barred by the doctrines of sovereign immunity as well as qualified
privilege. Mr. Arnold filed a timely notice of appeal.
Mr. Arnold purports to raise numerous arguments on appeal. However, these
arguments are practically incomprehensible because they are so poorly developed. To the
extent that we can follow Mr. Arnold’s arguments, he fails to cite any legal authority besides
a general reference under each of the six section headings to “[Citation: Constitution of the
State of Arkansas].” It is well established that we will not consider arguments not supported
by convincing argument or citation to legal authority. City of Little Rock v. Nelson ex rel.
Nelson, 2020 Ark. 19, at 6, 592 S.W.3d 666, 670; Robinson v. MidFirst Bank, 2014 Ark. App.
342, at 1–2. Our court will not make appellants’ argument for them or consider an argument
that is not properly developed. Teris, LLC v. Chandler, 375 Ark. 70, 289 S.W.3d 63 (2008).
The failure to cite legal authority or develop a point legally or factually is reason enough to
3
affirm the circuit court’s order. Williams v. Baptist Health, 2020 Ark. 150, at 20, 598 S.W.3d
487, 501 (citing Walters v. Dobbins, 2010 Ark. 260, 370 S.W.3d 209).
Although we recognize that Mr. Arnold is representing himself in this matter, pro se
appellants are held to the same standard as those represented by counsel and receive no
special consideration of their argument. Robinson, supra; Watkins v. Ark. Dep’t of Agric., 2018
Ark. App. 460, at 7, 560 S.W.3d 814, 821. Mr. Arnold has not developed his arguments,
cited to relevant authority, or specified any grounds on which we might reverse. Therefore,
we affirm the circuit court’s order.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and HARRISON, JJ., agree.
Eddy Arnold, pro se appellant.
Bradford J. Phelps, Arkansas State University System, for appellees.
4