WPC }N$2%p.M׷Wd;"WF sߡC0D[ &} !e*VETUX[%uj/#vrx)lhyZzަӭsZ{vpprdn&'P 'kz+~VLi 钐!cz-a ]دwu(Gk96eE(R!:w\܌/7q|GF7lc׳9v6e"~X/A|8Ɔ?:\0nӉ3Fj8O}+'ɳg)"\pgqq`!C-w[<}A=YJ0Hb&{qyC9M&à\U2,lFݢȩq?2N툖X17.Jrᓽ*Vu$Y V:VD@dF wQUf<5$YʄL# (UN3 % 0U<:UNv 00  n U<1hw@84x 0DU: AQ"s 0D9 0D} 0D D/ B4 D3QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ BHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,,,,,,0nLh(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman(hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular((3YI$ 7!  7XXdd7  XoXXX   `   0   & YI$  XoXXX `   2    ݀AssistantAttorneyGeneralMerrilynFeirmanwasnotservedwithprocess  andwassubsequentlydismissed.Thereisnoappealfromherdismissal. ` Inaddition,Ms.Feirmansnameisspelledanumberofdifferentwaysintherecord.Thespellingusedinthisopinionishowhernameisspelledinthetrial    courtsorderdismissingherasadefendant. y P$   X!XXX `   4    ݀ThecomplaintalsoallegesthatInJanuary1997,Haynesfiledaproceeding  forwritofmandamusinfederalcourt.Accordingtohiscomplaintandbrief,thismotionispendingappealinSixthCircuitCourtofAppeals. } P$  X!XXX `   4    ݀ThecomplaintalsoallegesthatinJanuary1997,Haynesfiledaproceeding  forwritofmandamusinfederalcourt.Accordingtohiscomplaintandbrief,thismotionispendingappealintheSixthCircuitCourtofAppeals.-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman  YI$  XoXXX `   1    Rule10(CourtofAppeals).MemorandumOpinion.(b)TheCourt,with  theconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodifytheactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhavenoprecedentialvalue.Whenacaseisdecidedbymemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated"MEMORANDUMOPINION,"shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforanyreasoninasubsequentunrelatedcase.XA XXXo ^ P$  X!XXX `   3    ݀FleminghadfiledhispetitionforpostconvictionreliefintheHickman  CriminalCourtonoraboutOctober12,1993.DrolsumwasappointedbythecourttorepresentFlemingonthismatter. PDDӀF& 3|x(3$ !   ""  XNXXXK$ XXN   Ad FILEDXNX K$  May21,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdAh ,cAZ"Arial Regular!"$&C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3$ !  (#$  0  ($$   1  ((' dxdP PdKKKK'dxd d 7!  7XXdd7  XoXXX  TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'T7XXdXXd7r )<,(j 8` `@E` 8ttxP,  r@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLEt )>.*jx` `@E ` 8ttxP   tߛ `  ______________________________________________ CHARLESE.HAYNES,      p FromtheHickmanCountyCircuit    `     h      p Court,No.975180C ` PlaintiffAppellant, h      p TheHonorableJamesL.Weatherford,    `     h      p JudgeVs. `     h      p C.A.No.01A019810CV00518    `     h      p AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED    JUDGEDONALDP.HARRIS,    ETAL,      `     h      p ̜ ` DefendantsAppellees.D.RandallMantooth;HalW.Wilkins; p JohnKnoxWalkup,AttorneyGeneral  Leitner,Williams,Dooley&Napolitan, p andReporter;MichaelE.Moore,  PLLCofNashville   h      p SolicitorGeneral;MaryM.Bers,  ForAppellee,JimRice h      p AssistantAttorneyGeneral   `     h      p ForAppellees,Harris,Baugh,Ronald `     h      p Davis,              EricDavis,Adams,Henderson, `     h      p andDrolsumCharlesE.Haynes,ProSe____________________________________________________________________________ 7  7XXdXXd7  XoXXXo  @33%MEMORANDUMOPINION  ##  1      ׈ ! ___________________________________________________________________________ CRAWFORD,J.  $  ` Plaintiff/Appellant,CharlesE.Haynes,appealstheordersofthetrialcourtdismissinghiscomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimagainstDefendants/Appellees,JudgeDonaldP.Harris,etal. ` Inreviewinganappealfromanorderdismissingasuitforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,weobviouslyarelimitedtotheallegationsinthecomplaint,andwemustconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff,takingalloftheallegationsoffactthereinastrue. Randolphv.Dominion 2++ BankofMiddleTennessee ,826S.W.2d477,478(Tenn.App.1991)(citing Huckeby 4 --) v.Spangler ,521S.W.2d568,571(Tenn.1974)).DismissalunderTenn.R.Civ.P.  12.02(6)iswarrantedonlywhennosetoffactswillentitletheplaintifftorelief. Pembertonv.AmericanDistilledSpiritsCo. ,664S.W.2d690,691(Tenn.1984).   Moreover,acomplaintshouldnotbedismissednomatterhowpoorlydraftedifitstatesacauseofaction. Dobbsv.Guenther ,846S.W.2d270,273(Tenn.App.  1992).In Humphriesv.WestEndTerrace,Inc. ,795S.W.2d128(Tenn.App.   1990),thisCourtsaid:8 ` 8 ` !` !  AmotiontodismisspursuanttoRule12.02(6),Tenn.R.Civ.P.,forfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedistheequivalentofademurrerunderourformercommonlawprocedureand,thus,isatestofthesufficiencyoftheleadingpleading. Cornpropstv.  Sloan ,528S.W.2d188,190,93A.L.R.3d979(Tenn.  1975).Suchamotionadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialavermentscontainedinthecomplaintbutassertsthatsuchfactsdonotconstituteacauseofaction. Cornpropst ,528S.W.2dat190.Acomplaintshouldnot  bedismisseduponsuchmotion unlessitappearsbeyonddoubtthattheplaintiffcanprovenosetoffactsinsupportofhisclaimthatwouldentitlehimtorelief. Fuerstv.MethodistHospitalSouth ,566S.W.2d847, " 848(Tenn.1978).Inconsideringwhethertodismissacomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,thecourtshouldconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintifftakingalloftheallegationsoffactthereinastrue. Huckebyv.Spangler ,  '  521S.W.2d568,571(Tenn.1975).     Humphries ,795S.W.2dat130.Onappeal,issuesraisedbyaRule12.02(6)motion "*## todismissarequestionsoflawthatarereviewed denovo withnopresumptionof &,%% correctness. Owensv.TruckstopsofAm. ,915S.W.2d420,424(Tenn.1996). *."''  ` Withtheaboverulesinmind,weexaminePlaintiffscomplaintfiledSeptember5,1997,againstJudgeDonaldP.Harris,JosephBaugh,RonaldDavis,EricDavis,JohnHenderson,LarryDrolsum,MerrilynFeirman ##  2      ,JimRiceandMark .4&-- Adams.Thepertinentallegationsofthecomplaintareasfollows:HaynesisincarceratedattheWestTennesseeHighSecurityFacilityservingalifesentenceforfirstdegreemurder.Haynes,alongwithacodefendant,NathanielFleming,wereconvictedoffirstdegreemurderonOctober20,1990.Afterhisconvictionwasaffirmedonappeal,HaynesfiledapetitionforpostconvictionreliefonJune27,1994,intheHickmanCountyCriminalCourt.DefendantJimRiceisthecourtclerk.OnJuly28,1994,ananswertothepetitionwasfiledbyDefendantRonaldDavis,whoistheAssistantDistrictAttorney.InJuly1994,counselfromthepublicdefendersofficewasappointedbyCriminalCourtJudgeDonaldP.HarristorepresentHaynes.DefendantJohnHendersonistheDistrictPublicDefender.HaynesaversthatheneverlearnedthenameofhisappointedcounselnorwasheevercontactedbytheappointedcounseluntilthedateofthehearingonhispetitiononMarch26,1996,whenAssistantPublicDefenderLarryDrolsummetwithhim.Intheinterim,Haynesfiledtwomotions,oneonJuly15,1995andtheotheronJanuary4,1996,requestingthecourttoreappointcounseltorepresenthimsincehehadnotheardfromanyonefromthepublicdefendersoffice.ThesemotionsweredeniedonthedayoftheMarch26,1996hearing. ` DuringtheproceedingsonMarch26,1996beforeJudgeHarris,HaynesobjectedtoDrolsumsrepresentationarguingthattherewasaconflictofinterestsinceDrolsumwasalsorepresentingHaynescodefendant,NathanielFleming.  ##  3      ׀ -&& HaynesaversthatDrolsumandFleminghadmetonseveraloccasionsbeforehandandthatthiswasthefirsttimehehadmetorconversedwithDrolsum.Haynesalsoobjectedtotheconsolidationofhispetitionwithhiscodefendantspetitionandto 3,, thefactthathehadnotbeencontactedbyhisappointedattorneypriortothedayofthehearing.Furthermore,HaynessubmitsthatJudgeHarris,duringtheproceedings,statedtheissuesthathewouldallowtoberaisedduringthehearing.Haynesaversthatnoneoftheissuesstatedbythejudgewereraisedbyhiminhispetition. ` BecauseofHaynesobjections,JudgeHarrisappointedMarkAdams,aprivateattorney,torepresentHaynesonJuly24,1996.HaynessubsequentlycontactedAdamsinAugustof1996.AdamsstatedthathewasunawareofhisbeingappointedascounseltorepresentHaynesbutthathewouldcheckintothematter.HaynesaversthatheneverheardfromAdamsorthecourt. ` Thecomplaintallegesactionsunder42U.S.C.1983,1985(2)and(3)forviolationofhisconstitutionalrightsundertheUnitedStatesConstitutionandtheTennesseeConstitution.   ##  4      כHaynesalsoseeksdamagespursuantto42U.S.C.1986.  HaynesallegesthattheDefendantsviolatedhisrightofaccesstothecourtandhisrightsofdueprocessandequalprotectionofthelawduetothemannerinwhichhispetitionwashandledinthattheDefendantsconspiredagainsthimtoviolatehisconstitutionalrightsandthattheykneworshouldhaveknownabouttheconspiracyanddidnotstopit.Haynesrequestsadeclarationthathisrightswereviolatedandanawardofcompensatorydamages. ` TheDefendantssubsequentlyfiledmotionspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)todismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.OnMarch20,1998,thetrialcourtgrantedtheDefendantsmotionstodismiss. ` Haynesappealsandtheonlyissueforreviewiswhetherthetrialcourterred 5.. ingrantingtheDefendantsmotionstodismiss. ` Haynescomplaintpurportstostateaclaimunder42U.S.C.1983,1985(2)and(3),and1986duetoanallegedconspiracytodeprivehimofhisrightofaccesstothecourtsandhisdueprocessandequalprotectionrights. Itiswellsettledthatconspiracyclaimsmustbepledwithsomedegreeofspecificityandthatvagueandconclusoryallegationsunsupportedbymaterialfactswillnotbesufficienttostatesuchaclaimunder1983. Gutierrezv.Lynch ,826F.2d1534,1538(6th   Cir.1987).Thesameistrueinordertostateaclaimunder42U.S.C.1985(2).    Jacov.Bloechle ,739F.2d239,245(6thCir.1984).Asfor42U.S.C.1985(3),   alongwithrequiringspecificity,theremustalsobeallegationsofaclassbasedconspiracyinordertostateaclaim. Id. (citing Griffinv.Breckenridge ,403U.S.88,  91S.Ct.1790,29L.Ed.2d338(1971); Taylorv.BrightonCorp. ,616F.2d256   (6thCir.1980)); seealso  Dunnv.Tennessee ,697F.2d121,124(6thCir.1982)(To  stateaclaimunder1985(3),acomplaintmustallegebothaconspiracyandsomeclass-baseddiscriminatoryanimusbehindtheconspiratorsaction.). ` FromareviewoftheallegationscontainedinHaynescomplaint,wefindthattheyareinsufficienttowithstandamotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaim.Haynesallegationslacktherequisitematerialfactsandspecificitynecessarytosustainaconspiracyclaim.Hisallegationsalsofailtoallegeaclassbasedconspiracyfor1985(3)purposes.Thus,thetrialcourtproperlydismissedHaynesclaimsunder1983and1985(2)and(3).Moreover,becauseHaynes1986claimisdependentupontheexistenceofavalid1985causeofaction,itwasproperlydismissedlikewise. SeeJaco ,739F.2dat245. 3,,  ` AlthoughdDefendantsinthetrialcourtandagaininthiscourtpresentseveralothervalidreasonsforthedismissalofthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,wewillnotprolongthisopinionbydelvingintothem  922 separately. ` Accordingly,theordersofthetrialcourtdismissingthecomplaintareaffirmed,andthecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.Costsoftheappealareassessedagainsttheappellant. `     h      p _________________________________ `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,    `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.      CONCUR:      ____________________________________  ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE   ____________________________________ DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE