WPC # VU>a % 0(4w@ 0l0 0D U:  0J" 0Tl 0^ 0h 0r 0| 0t 0 1u U, 0d+U,B)DC AM'U*t" B D3dv~v 0@ AO(w 0D= D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 <( 9Z &Courier RegularX($D x3|x" errDeeӀ"((3$ !      0  (#$  0  <6X9`("Courier NewTT2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X<  9p`(Monaco% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd-$C << G<  9p`(Arial  !  #d#  &&   YYY FILED&XJuly10,1996CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerk   d } !#d#   $       CourtofAppealsRule10(b):8 TheCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated"MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.(((('dxdPtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco ("$    -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &""Xd&#""Xd#   ` X X \RA'\ћ7.qXdd7  ќASHADRASHADABDULLAHALI, )  )#` XxX# Petitioner/Appellant, ) AppealNo.  ) 01A019601CH00039v.  )  ) HickmanChanceryٜL%'$;+'h|v`  `LߛERICHARDISON,PAULETTEDAVIS, ) No.9512135MARSHALLCOOPER,DAVIDMILLS, )DONALCAMPBELL, )  ) Respondents/Appellees. )  COURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEEMIDDLESECTIONATNASHVILLEAPPEALFROMTHECHANCERYCOURTFORHICKMANCOUNTYATCENTERVILLE,TENNESSEETHEHONORABLECORNELIAA.CLARK,CHANCELLOR ` XX   XASHADRASHADABDULLAHALI,ProSeRSMI(Unit#1/B/107)7475CockrillBendIndustrialRoadNashville,Tennessee37243CHARLESW.BURSONAttorneyGeneralandReporterKYLEP.SOWELLAssistantAttorneyGeneralCivilRightsandClaimsDivision404JamesRobertsonParkway,Suite2000 ATTORNEYSFORRESPONDENTS/APPELLEES  AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGE  MEMORANDUMOPINION )     #` ` X#X Thisisanappealbypetitioner/appellant,AshadRashadAbdullahAli,fromthetrialcourt'sjudgmentdismissinghispetitionforwritofcertiorari.ThepetitionsoughtareviewofadisciplinaryactiontakenbytheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection("TDOC")againstpetitioner.Thechancerycourtdeterminedthatpetitionerfiledhispetitioninthewrongcourtandthat,asaresult,itdidnothavejurisdictiontoentertainthepetition.Therefore,thecourt,suasponte,dismissedthepetitionforlackofjurisdiction. PetitionerfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtforHickmanCountyon12December1995pursuanttoTennesseeCodeAnnotatedtitle27chapters8and9.Inhispetition,petitionerallegedthathereceivedadisciplinarywriteupon23August1995charginghimwiththeoffenseof"riot."Thechargearoseoutofastrikeworkstoppageand/ordisturbancethatoccurredon7August1995attheTurneyCenterIndustrialPrisonandFarminHickmanCounty,Tennessee.Asaresultoftheinmatedisturbance,prisonofficialsplacedtheentireprisononlockdownstatusforapproximatelythreemonths. Petitionerfurtherallegedthatheappearedbeforetheprisondisciplinaryboardtoanswerthechargeon25August1995andthatthedisciplinaryboardfoundhimguilty.Thereafter,petitionerappealedthedecisiontorespondentMortonMillswhoaffirmedthedecisionofthedisciplinaryboard.PetitionerthenappealedtorespondentDonalCampbell,thecommissionerofTDOC,whodeniedtheappealandaffirmedthedecisionofthedisciplinaryboard.Petitionerclaimedthathereceivednoticeon26October1995ofrespondentCampbell'sdecision. Followingthefilingofthepetitionforwritofcertiorari,thechancerycourtenteredanorderdismissingthepetitionforlackofjurisdiction.ThecourtfoundthatpetitionershouldhavefiledthewritinDavidsonCountybecausehesoughtreliefagainstanagencyofthestategovernment.Petitionerappealedthechancerycourt'sfinding.Thus,theissuebeforethiscourtiswhethertheHickmanCountyChanceryCourtcorrectlydismissedthepetitionforlackofjurisdiction. In Bishopv.Connely ,894S.W.2d294(Tenn.Crim.App.1994),petitionerfiledawritofhabeascorpusintheLakeCountyCircuitCourtchallengingadisciplinaryboardrulingbyTDOC.ThetrialcourtdismissedthepetitionandBishopappealed.Onappeal,theCourtofCriminalAppealsaffirmedthedecisionofthetrialcourtandheldthatthepropermethodforchallengingadisciplinaryactionbyTDOCistofileapetitionforwritofcertiorari,notapetitionforwritofhabeascorpus. Bishop ,894S.W.2dat296.Thecourtfurtherheldthat,becauseBishopwasseekingreliefagainstanagencyofstategovernment,heshouldhavefiledhispetitionforwritofcertiorariinthecountywhichistheofficialsitusoftheagencyhead'soffice. Id. ThecourtconcludedthattheDavidsonCountycourtsshouldreviewprisoners'petitionsforwritofcertiorarichallengingadisciplinaryactionofTDOC. Id.  Here,petitionershouldhavefiledhispetitionforwritofcertiorariinDavidsonCounty.ItchallengedadisciplinaryactiontakenbyTDOCagainstpetitioner.Accordingly,thepropercourttoconsiderthepetitionwasaDavidsonCountycourt. InsupportofhiscontentionthatDavidsonCountycourtsdonothaveexclusivejurisdiction,petitionerreliedonanunreportedopinionoftheWesternSectionofthiscourt. Williamsv.TennesseeDep'tofCorrection ,No.02A019503CV00046,1995WL575142(Tenn.App.20ct.1995).Thefactsin Williams werealmostidenticaltothoseinthiscase.Theonefactualdifferencewasthattheinmatein Williams filedhispetitionforwritofcertiorariinLauderdaleCountybecausehewasincarceratedattheWestTennesseeHighSecurityFacility.The Williams courtheldthatthecourtsofLauderdaleCountyhadconcurrentjurisdictionwiththecourtsofDavidsonCounty.Inreachingitsdecision,thecourtstated:8 Inthecasebeforeus,petitionerseeksreviewofactionstakenbytheprisondisciplinaryboard,theprisonwarden,andthecommissioneroftheDepartmentofCorrection.Petitionerisnotseekingreviewofadecisionofastateboard"exclusivelylocatedelsewhere."ThesitusofthedisciplinaryboardinvolvedhereinisatWTHSF,inLauderdaleCounty.Furthermore,petitionerisaninmateatthesameinstitution.Thewardenandmembersofthedisciplinaryboard,employeesoftheprison,havetheirprincipalofficeinLauderdaleCounty,andlikelyhavetheirresidencesthereaswell.TheincidentfromwhichthechargeagainstpetitionerstemsoccurredinLauderdaleCountyasdidthedisciplinaryboard'shearingonthematterandthewarden'saffirmanceoftheboard'sdecision.OnlythecommissioneroftheDepartmentofCorrectionislocatedinDavidsonCounty.8 Inouropinion,alljurisdictionalrequirementsaremetforthefilingofthepetitionforcertiorariinthecourtsofLauderdaleCounty. Id. at*4.Intheopinionofthe Williams court,itwasappropriatetoconsiderthattheinferiortribunalorboardfromwhichtheprisonerwasseekingreviewunderTennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection278101wasreallythedisciplinaryboardlocatedinLauderdaleCounty,notthecommissionerlocatedinDavidsonCounty. Petitioneradoptedthereasoninginthe Williams case.HearguedthatheshouldbeallowedtofilehispetitioninHickmanCountybecausehewasseekingareviewofthedecisionofthedisciplinaryboardlocatedinHickmanCounty,becausethewarden'saffirmanceofthedecisionoccurredinHickmanCounty,andbecausethe"riot"occurredinHickmanCounty.Respondentscounteredthat,ifpetitionerwishedtofilehispetitioninHickmancountybasedontheargumentthatthesitusoftheinferiortribunalorboardwasmorecloselyassociatedwithHickmanCountythanwithDavidsonCounty,petitionershouldhavefiledhispetitionwithinsixtydaysofthedisciplinaryboard'sdecisionorthewarden'saffirmance.TennesseeCodeAnnotatedsection279102providesthatapartyshallfiletheirpetitionwithinsixtydaysfromtheentryoftheorderorjudgment.Tenn.CodeAnn.279102(1980). Here,thedisciplinaryboardrenderedtheirdecisionon25August1995.Thewardenaffirmedthedecisionofthedisciplinaryboardon14September1995.RespondentCommissionerCampbellaffirmedthedecisionon26October1995.Petitionerdidnotfilehispetitionuntil12December1995.Thatis,hefailedtofilehispetitionwithinsixtydaysofeitherthedisciplinaryboard'sjudgmentorthewarden'saffirmance.Therefore,weareoftheopinionthatHickmanCountyisnottheproperforumtoconsiderthepetition. PetitionerdidfilehispetitionwithinsixtydaysofCommissionerCampbell'saffirmance.Therefore,petitionerobviouslychosethedateonwhichthecommissioneraffirmedthedecisiontobethestartingpointfromwhichthesixtydaystatuteoflimitationwouldbegintorun.Thus,weareoftheopinionthatweshouldconstruehispetitionasonechallengingtheoveralldisciplinaryactionprocesswhichendedintheofficeofthecommissionerofTDOClocatedinDavidsonCounty,notasoneseekingmerelytochallengethedecisionofthelocaldisciplinaryboard. Thejudgmentofthechancerycourtisthereforeaffirmed,andthecauseisremandedforanyfurthernecessaryproceedings.Costsonappealaretaxedtothepetitioner/appellant,AshadRashadAbdullahAli.  __________________________________  SAMUELL.LEWIS,JUDGECONCUR:_________________________________HENRYF.TODD,P.J.,M.S._________________________________BENH.CANTRELL,JUDGE