Page 104
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 105
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 106
APPEAL
FROM THE CRITTENDEN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 18CV-16-30],
HONORABLE RICHARD LUSBY, JUDGE
Frederick Lee Pitchford, pro se appellant.
Davis
Loftin, West Memphis, for appellees.
OPINION
N. MARK
KLAPPENBACH, Judge
This
appeal returns to us after we ordered supplementation of the
record and the addendum. Pitchford v. City of Earle,
2019 Ark.App. 135, 2019 WL 947386. The deficiencies we
identified have been corrected, and we now consider the
merits of the appeal.
Appellant
Frederick Lee Pitchford, pro se, appeals the April 16, 2018
orders of the Crittenden County Circuit Court that rendered
judgment in favor of the City of Earle on Pitchfords
numerous claims of wrongdoing by the city, its officials, and
certain employees and that denied Pitchfords posttrial
motion.[1] Appellant presents thirteen points on
appeal. We affirm.
Between January and December 2016, Pitchford filed an
original complaint and three amended complaints against the
city. Pitchford purported to represent himself and
"Other interested citizens (taxpayers)" of Earle
in his various complaints of wrongdoing in the procedures
used to operate the city and of alleged improper use of
taxpayer funds. In the January 2016 filing titled
"Complaint Injunction of Budget," Pitchford wanted
the citys 2016 budget to be frozen because he believed it
had been created under an improper and fraudulent process in
the December 2015 budget meeting. He also accused the city
clerk of violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by
failing to provide him a copy of the adding-machine tape and
notes she took during that budget meeting. In the original
complaint, Pitchford asked for an injunction against this
alleged illegal exaction and misapplication of taxpayer
funds.
Pitchford filed amended complaints, one in May 2016 and two
in December 2016, to add numerous allegations, summarized as
follows: (1) that city councilman Luckett had been appointed
city inspector, holding two offices in violation of statute,
and that the monies paid to Luckett should be returned; (2)
that the city mechanic and police chief had been wrongfully
terminated; (3) that a city vehicle had been observed in the
parking lot of the dog-racing track, which was not city
business, constituting an illegal exaction; (4) that the
interim mayor should be enjoined and excluded from
...