WPC =vePu>Ȉ o9kaR#cI;>`Xql5iM#Q)& ?WZCP@33,k@~(65韍Ƭ$.|5_km퇃EUս7f T ![H9% `T JYdP0Kҍ?TWqj @55' OPINION #XX#XXԈ !n #XX #XX  Petitioner,HendersonKelly,isaninmatelawfullyinthecustodyoftheTennessee "N! DepartmentofCorrectionsandincarceratedatSouthCentralCorrectionalFacilityinClifton, #>" Tennessee.HewaschargedwithviolatingTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection( _T.D.O.C._)policy $. # wherebyadrugscreenhada positiveoutcome.AtaJune2,1998disciplinaryhearing,hepleaded %!$ guiltytothechargeandreceivedsixtydayspunitivesegregationwhichwassuspended.Hefurther &"% receivedafineof$4.00togetherwithfourmonthspackagerestriction,sixmonthsvisitation '"& suspension,and$20.00tobepaidinrestitution.Mr.Kellypetitionedthecourtforcertiorari (#' claimingthatthe_T.D.O.C._spolicyandtheprocedureinthiscaseweredenialsofdueprocess.We )$( findthatthetrialcourtcorrectlygrantedthemotiontodismissinthiscase. ~*%)   Fromafederalstandpoint,thismatterisclearlygovernedbySandinv.Conner,515U.S.472 ^,'+ (1995),anditsprogeny.InconstruingSandin,theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWestern N-(,' DistrictofTennesseeheldasfollows:  8  _Sandin_returnedtothequestion[of]whetherinmatesevenhavealibertyinterestin  freedomfromsegregation,punitiveoradministrative.The[Supreme]Court...  concludedthattheydonot.p   8  8`   Thetimehascometoreturntothedueprocessprincipleswebelieve P  werecorrectlyestablishedandappliedinWolffandMeachum. @  FollowingWolff,werecognizethatStatesmayundercertain 0  circumstancescreatelibertyinterestswhichareprotectedbytheDue  p  ProcessClause.Buttheseinterestswillbegenerallylimitedto `  freedomfromrestraintwhich,whilenotexceedingthesentencein P  suchanunexpectedmannerastogiverisetoprotectionbytheDue @  ProcessClauseofitsownforce,...nonethelessimposesatypicaland 0  significanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidents   ofprisonlife.` x` x 8  8`    [Theprisoner]asserts,incorrectly,thatanystateactiontaken  forapunitivereasonencroachesuponalibertyinterestundertheDue  ProcessClauseevenintheabsenceofanystateregulation....We  holdthat[theprisoners]disciplineinsegregatedconfinementdidnot  presentthetypeofatypical,significantdeprivationinwhichastate p mightconceivablycreatealibertyinterest....Wehold,therefore, ` thatneithertheHawaiiprisonregulationinquestion,northeDue P ProcessClauseitself,afforded[theprisoner]aprotectedliberty @ interestthatwouldentitlehimtotheproceduralprotectionssetforth 0 inWolff.Theregimetowhichhewassubjectedasaresultofthe  p misconducthearingwaswithintherangeofconfinementtobe ` normallyexpectedforoneservinganindeterminatetermof30years P tolife.@` x` x 8   ` Sandinthusfocusesnotonthecontentofregulations,butonthe natureof   thedeprivationvisitedupontheinmate.Absent atypicalandsignificanthardship, ! achangeintheconditionsofconfinementsimplydoesnotinflictacognizableinjury "  thatmeritsconstitutionalprotection,regardlessofthemotivationoftheofficialwhen #! makingthechange.Thuslanguageinstatelawsorprisonregulationsnolonger $" createsalibertyinterestprotectedbytheDueProcessClause.RimmerBeyv.Brown, % # 62F.3d789,79091(6thCir.1995).Rather,fromnowon,whenanalyzingdue p&!$ processclaimsfederalcourtslookneithertostatelawsorregulationstoascertain `'"% whethertheycreatealibertyinterestinconnectionwithahousingassignment, P(#& impositionofadministrativeordisciplinarysegregation,reclassification,job @)$' assignment,oraprisontransfer,nortothesubjectivemotivesofprisonofficialsfor 0*%( effectingsuchchanges.Instead,theCourtfocusesonthenatureofthedeprivation  +p&) itself.,`'*   Ї_Rienholtz_Ԁ_v._ԀCampbell,64F.Supp.2d721,72829(W.D.Tenn.1999)(citationsomitted)(quoting  _Sandin_Ԁv.Conner,515U.S.472,48487(1995)),_affd_,198F.3d247(6thCir.1999).    Initsopinion,thedistrictcourtgoesontoexplaintheimpactofthe_Sandin_case.Thecourt  quotesthecaseof_Orellana_Ԁv.Kyleasfollows: p 8  After[_Sandin_],prisonersmaynolongerperusestatestatutesandprisonregulations P  searchingforthegrailoflimiteddiscretion.Instead,aprisonerhasalibertyinterest @  onlyin freedom[s]fromrestraint...impos[ing]atypicalandsignificanthardship 0  ontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsofprisonlife. p    _Rienholtz_,64F.Supp.2dat729(quoting_Orellana_Ԁv.Kyle,65F.3d29,31(5thCir.1995)).The P  districtcourtfurtherstatesthat, [_a]ccording_ԀtoOrellana,onlydeprivationsthatclearlyimpingeon @  thedurationofconfinement,willhenceforthevenpossiblyqualifyforconstitutional liberty 0  status.Id.(emphasisinoriginal).     InthiscasethereisnoshowingthattheDisciplinaryBoardactedillegally,fraudulently,or  arbitrarily,northatithasexceededitsjurisdiction.Thecommonlawwritofcertioraricannotbe  usedtoreviewtheBoardsjudgmentonlaworfact.Henryv.BoardofClaims,638S.W.2d825  (Tenn.Ct.App.1982).    Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallrespectsaffirmedandcostsareassessedagainstthe ` petitioner. P    `     h   __________________________________________ `    `     h   WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE