RUSSELL V. GRIMES ARK.] Cite as 327 Ark. 201 (1997) 201 Michael RUSSELL v. Sheriff Gary GRIMES, Officer Seibach, Officer Layne, and Any Unknown Parties 97-26 936 S.W.2d 763 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered February 3, 1997 APPEAL & ERROR - MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DENIED. - While there is no inherent right to judicial process, the State may not withold this process when to do so would deprive a person of a fundamental constitutional right; appellant having failed to demonstrate how a civil appeal from a replevin action implicates a fundamental right, his motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied.
RUSSELL v. GlumEs 202 Cite as 327 Ark. 201 (1997) [327 Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis; denied. Appellant, pro se. No response. PER CuRIANt. The appellant, Michael Russell, has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On November 20, 1995, Russell brought a replevin action against various officers of the Sebastian County Sheriff's office to recover certain items of personal property allegedly seized from him during booking. The trial court allowed Russell to proceed in forma pauperis. After a bench trial on September 9, 1996, the trial court found that there was no evidence of possession on the part of any of the defendants to sustain replevin. Russell attempted to lodge the record in this court, when he was notified that he must remit a filing fee to the Clerk of the Court. Russell now moves this court to waive the filing fee so that the record may be lodged and a briefing schedule set. [1] While there is no inherent right to judicial process, the State may not withhold this process when to do so would deprive a person of a fundamental constitutional right. Boddie v. Connecti-cut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971). Russell has failed to demonstrate how a civil appeal from a replevin action implicates a fundamental right. The motion 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.