ARK.] 199 Albert Lee JOHNSON v. Hon. Fred D. DAVIS, Circuit Judge, Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas; and State of Arkansas, et al. 93-1166 866 S.W.2d 384 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered November 22, 1993 1. PROCESS - SERVICE OF - NO EVIDENCE SERVICE EVER MADE. - The fact that the record did not indicate whether the circuit judge had been served by the petitioner with the complaint and summons left the judge without any obligation to set the matter down for trial; without service, the circuit judge may not have even know that the complaint had been filed, there was no obligation to answer or set this matter down for trial if the matter has not come to his attention. 2. TRIAL - JUDGE NOT FORCED TO SET MATTER FOR TRIAL - EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF THE DOCKET A MATTER FOR THE TRIAL JUDGE. - The appellate court declined to force the circuit judge to set the complaint regarding parole eligibility down for trial, even assuming the judge had been properly served; effective control of the docket is a matter for the trial judge and the appellate courts are reluctant to interfere with the circuit judge's control of his docket. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, or in the Alternative, Request for the State to Waive the Federal Habeas Corpus Exhaustion, denied. Albert Lee Johnson, pro se. No response. PER CURIAM. The petitioner, Albert Lee Johnson, appears pro se and requests that we order the circuit judge, Fred D. Davis, to hear his complaint regarding parole eligibility which was filed on January 25, 1993. On August 17, 1993, Johnson moved for a trial setting. He states that the circuit judge has not set the matter down for trial. There has been no response from the respondents. [1] We first observe that the record before us does not indicate whether the circuit judge has been served by Johnson with the complaint and summons. Without service, the circuit
200 [315 judge may well not even know that the complaint has been filed. Certainly, there is no obligation to answer or set this matter down for trial if the matter has not come to his attention. [2] Secondly, we decline to force the circuit judge to set this matter down for trial, assuming the judge has been properly served. We have stated in the past that effective control of the docket is a matter for the trial judge. See, e.g., Insurance from CNA v. Keene Corp., 310 Ark. 605, 839 S.W.2d 199 (1992); Brown v. Wood, 257 Ark. 252, 516 S.W.2d 98 (1974). We are reluctant to interfere with the circuit judge's control of his docket under these facts. The request that we waive a federal requirement for habeas corpus is frivolous on its face. The petition is denied.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.