ÿWPCZ F“kj\•ƒ™¿^J¦Ì&3ïçÜ(î‹›ÓE|rÝ4À‹oæí:0fägoÓÄ9w‘tŠ=3,Þà­8O>"ñº¶ïýg‚Æ‹×ÎÞCeYJ`Þ{DŒ æLìT^F5û˜úèΫNÒ 8´å¢¡8œ~a‡i~dÙgƬ3Œ}€šŽó¼o„\kOÝÉ’2÷)Ösaë‘ô!NŽÂSmdE´ÅdÝ"ÅjõÜ…ZA yðôíÿtÇ$Ù‘|JQcIÉ ó®ÓùäÆÂ˜BdZ3gPèÌ«ìn4£ê=ú‹Ùœo/ÀÅ#¹amÁZú<¹=ŸªÔ©2\•Øšu ûÇÿZBhºk2ýŒ–v¦ÐÙ TÆêRCVì#Ê$oå§1Ž|Ň¯’!­E¥Ý6¹êŸn´¶X82ûñÛïà©^rÅ{¯ŸÔ'HØói£Š8æÛ4Eßs¿Ã=±÷r½·›WPý®s—S½c©Ùò ~lh) ]ì’;Ÿ¤Ý/Ô4¨«’£p¾—UÝØNÿ x)ÜÒÈ7|€—œÐš¦ýPt# ¥Û>@7Ãäz¦ vyeõ$(‹¬èœµ¸0„`1+2kfܨõT¾ê_fQ5˜@~HæHMÈÛ2}²…4F Z 0(i ‘ w@™ Ù UNø U:F € U:Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ Ÿ UBÙ %           B! ! ! ! ! D3> > > 0Dq q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q q AOµ Æ 0DÊ D/ B=¢RC&ÔøÔô3|x($¡¡ DD  Ó€ Ô€XokXXXÔÔ€îÙþîXXokÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€'ÒîîÙþÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€31,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ôÿÏ ô'ÒÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó(ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman Regular,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular Ô€ XokXXXÔÔ€ îÙþîX XokÔÓ  ÓÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€ 'Òî îÙþÔÐ  ÐÌò òMarch€24,€1999Ð ¶¶ ÐÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€ ôÿÏ ô 'ÒÔAppellate€CourtÐ –– ÐClerkó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular<þ6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX d%%%%'ÿÿdxd(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýñ ñ›ñ ñѰÑÒܰÒÑ ý ÑÑTR[  AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ7€ÊvXXdÈXXdð7ÑÔ€XPZXXXÔÔ€Š¤ÌŠXXPZÔñññ ñßr€*<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñ ñññññßr€ *<,(j 8 `€€@E  tt0"H¨Órßñññ ñ›ñ ñ€€€€à@j j ‚àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ  ÐÌà@>>%‚àAT€KNOXVILLEˆÌó óÌÌÌÌGARY€LYNN€MACK,à < àà ” àà ì à)€C/A€NO.€03A01„9806„CV„00215Ð  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìà 4 àPlaintiff„Appellant,à < àà ” àà ì à)€MORGAN€CIRCUITÐ   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)Ìv.à 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€RUSSELL€E.€SIMMONS,€JR.,Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à)€JUDGEÌCHARLIE€JONES,€et€al.,à < àà ” àà ì à)Ð   Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àœ)€AFFIRMED€AND›Ìà 4 àDefendants„Appellees.à ” àà ì àœ)€REMANDED›Ð  ÐÌÌÌÌGARY€LYNN€MACK,€òòpro€se.óóÐ  ÐÌœññPAUL€SUMMERS,€ññññJOHN›€KNOX›€WALKUP,›€ññAttorney›€General€and€Reporter,€MICHAEL€E.€MOORE,€SolicitorÏGeneral,€and€ABIGAIL€TURNER,€Assistant€Attorney€General,€Nashville,€forÏAppellees€Jones,€Armes,€Newberry€&€Elmore.ÌÌÌÌÌà@%‚àò òòòO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ $ ÐÌÌà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àà D àà œ àFranks,€J.ÌÌÌÓÓà 4 àà Œ àIn€this€action,€plaintiff€a€prisoner,€named€Charlie€Jones,€the€warden€ofÏthe€Morgan€County€Regional€Correction€Facility,€Rick€Elmore,€Regina€Armes€andÏCarey€Newberry€as€defendants,€alleging€a€violation€of€his€civil€rights€under€42€U.S.C.Ïðð1983.€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€complaint€alleges€that€on€January€9,€1996,€plaintiff€was€involved€inÏa€fight€with€another€inmate,€Randy€Hill,€who€was€white,€and€on€January€9,€1996,€theÏdisciplinary€board€of€the€Morgan€County€Regional€Correctional€Facility€found€himÏguilty€of€an€infraction€and€placed€him€on€maximum€security€status.€€He€further€allegesÏthis€action€was€racially€discriminatory€because€he€was€disciplined€and€the€whiteÐ :þ23ýç Ðinmate€was€not.€€He€also€avers€that€he€was€denied€due€process€of€law€because€theÏdisciplinary€board€members€denied€him€the€right€to€call€witnesses€on€his€behalf.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€complaint€states€that€Jones€is€the€warden€of€the€prison€and€RickÏElmore€is€identified€as€chairman,€with€more,€and€there€is€no€identity€of€theÏinvolvement€of€any€of€the€other€parties.€€In€a€memorandum€in€support€of€defendantsððÏmotion€to€dismiss,€defendants€explain€that€Elmore,€Newberry€and€Armes€are€membersÏof€the€disciplinary€board€which€found€plaintiff€guilty€of€an€assault€in€a€disciplinaryÏproceeding.€€Responding€to€defendantsðð€motion€to€dismiss€pursuant€to€T.R.C.P.Ïðð12.02,€the€Trial€Judge€dismissed€the€complaint€on€the€ground€that€plaintiff€failed€toÏstate€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€ð ðestablished€that€a€complaint€ððshouldÏnot€be€dismissed€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€unless€it€appears€beyond€doubt€that€theÏplaintiff€can€prove€no€set€of€facts€in€support€of€his€claim€that€would€entitle€him€toÏreliefðððð.€€òòFuerst€v.€Methodist€Hosp.€Southóó,€588€S.W.2d€847,€848€(Tenn.€1978),Ð ! Ð(òòquoting€Conley€v.€Gibsonóó,€355€U.S.€41„46,€78€S.Ct.€99,€102,€2€L.Ed.€80€(1957)).€€InÐ # Ðmaking€its€determination,€the€court€should€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€ofÏthe€plaintiff.€€òòId.óó€at€848„849.€€Complaints€filed€by€òòpro€seóó€plaintiffs€should€be€held€ð ðtoÐ '  Ðless€stringent€standards€than€formal€pleadings€drafted€by€lawyers.ðð€€òòHaines€v.€Kerneróó,Ð )"" Ð404€U.S.€519,€520,€92€S.Ct.€594,€596,€30€L.Ed.2d€652€(1972).€€However,€as€one€courtÏhas€said,€the€court€ð ðneed€no€argue€a€òòpro€seóó€litigantððs€case€nor€create€a€case€for€the€òòproÐ -&& Ðseóó€which€does€not€exist.ðð€€òòMolina€v.€Kayeóó,€956€F.Supp.€261,€263€(E.D.N.Y.€1996).Ð /(( Ðà 4 àà Œ à42€U.S.C.€ðð1983€provides:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àEvery€person€who,€under€color€of€any€statute,€ordinance,€regulationÏcustom€or€usage,€of€any€State€or€Territory€or€the€District€of€Columbia,Ïsubjects,€or€causes€to€be€subjected,€any€citizen€of€the€United€States€orÏother€person€within€the€jurisdiction€thereof€to€the€deprivation€of€anyÏrights,€privileges,€or€immunities€secured€by€the€Constitution€and€laws,Ïshall€be€liable€to€the€party€injured€in€an€action€at€law,€suit€in€equity,€orÏother€proper€proceeding€for€redress.€.€.€.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÐ :33 ÐÓÓIn€order€to€establish€a€claim€for€liability€under€this€statute,€ð ða€plaintiff€must€plead€andÏprove€œñ ñ.€.€.€ñ ñtwo›€elements:€(1)€that€he€has€been€deprived€of€a€right€ððsecured€by€theÏConstitution€and€lawsðð€of€the€United€States;€and€(2)€that€the€defendant€deprived€him€ofÏthis€right€while€acting€under€color€of€law.ðð€€òòCoffy€v.€Multi„County€Narcotics€Bureauóó,Ð   Ð600€F.2d€570,€576€(6th€Cir.€1979).€€òòAlso€see€Dunn€v.€State€of€Tenn.óó,€697€F.2d€121,€125Ð (  Ð(6th€Cir.€1982)€òòcert.€deniedóó,€460€U.S.€1086,€103€S.Ct.€1778,€76€L.Ed.2d€349€(1983).€€Ð 0(  Ðà 4 àà Œ àTo€state€a€ðð1983€claim,€a€plaintiff€must€set€forth€specific€facts€thatÏestablish€such€claim.€€ð ðIt€is€not€enough€for€a€complaint€under€ðð1983€to€contain€mereÏconclusory€allegations€of€unconstitutional€conduct€by€persons€acting€under€color€ofÏstate€law.€€Some€factual€basis€for€such€claims€must€be€set€forth€in€the€pleadings.ðð€ÏòòChapman€v.€City€of€Detroitóó,€808€F.2d€4569,€465€(6th€Cir.€1986).€€Ð XP Ðà 4 àà Œ àA€plaintiff€must€also€allege€personal€involvement€by€the€personsÏcharged.€€Liability€cannot€be€established€under€a€òòrespondeat€superioróó€theory.€€TheÐ h` Ðmere€right€to€control,€without€more,€does€not€establish€liability.€€òòMonell€v.€Dept.€OfÐ p!h ÐSoc.€Serv.óó,€436€U.S.€658,€691,€694€n.58,€98€S.Ct.€2018,€2036„2037€(1978).€€ð ðThereÐ x#p Ðmust€be€a€showing€that€the€supervisor€encouraged€the€specific€incident€of€misconductÏor€in€some€other€way€directly€participated€in€it.€€At€a€minimum,€a€ðð1983€plaintiff€mustÏshow€that€a€supervisory€official€at€least€implicitly€authorized,€approved€or€knowinglyÏacquiesced€in€the€unconstitutional€conduct€of€the€offending€subordinate.ðð€€òòBellamy€v.Ð ˜+$$ ÐBradleyóó,€729€F.2d€416,€421€(6th€Cir.€1984).Ð  -˜&& Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€complaint€in€this€case€does€not€state€a€claim€of€racial€discriminationÏin€the€disciplinary€proceedings€at€the€correctional€facility.€€The€plaintiff€alleged€that€heÏwas€involved€in€a€fight€with€another€inmate,€Randy€Hill,€who€was€white,€and€that€heÏwas€found€guilty€of€assault€and€placed€on€maximum€security€status,€and€that€RandyÏHill€was€found€not€guilty.€€Taking€these€facts€as€true,€no€claim€of€racial€discriminationÏhas€been€alleged.Ð Ð9È22 Ðà 4 àà Œ àA€claim€of€racial€discrimination€under€ðð1983€is€a€claim€of€ð ðdisparateÏtreatmentðð.€€òòSee€Daniels€v.€Board€of€Educ.€Of€Ravenna€City€Sch.óó,€805€F.2d€203,€207Ð   Ð(6th€Cir.€1986).€€ð ðTo€prevail€under€the€disparate€treatment€theory,€a€plaintiff€mustÏshow€that€he€has€been€the€victim€of€intentional€discrimination.ðð€€òòId.óó€at€206.€€ToÐ   Ðestablish€a€òòprima€facieóó€case€of€disparate€treatment,€a€plaintiff€must€at€least€plead€factsÐ (  Ðð ðfrom€which€one€can€infer,€if€such€actions€remain€unexplained,€that€it€is€more€likelyÏthan€not€that€such€actions€were€ððbased€on€a€discriminatory€criterion€illegal€under€theÏact.ðððð.€€òòFurnco€Const.€Corp.€v.€Watersóó,€438€U.S.€567,€576,€98€S.Ct.€2943,€2949Ð @8 Ð(1978).€€Here€there€is€no€allegation€of€intentional€discrimination.€€Plaintiff€onlyÏestablished€that€he€was€disciplined€and€that€the€white€inmate€involved€in€the€fight€wasÏnot.€€He€then€concluded€that€this€action€was€due€to€racial€discrimination.€€However,Ïthe€complaint€must€be€based€on€more€than€conclusory€allegations.€€òòChapman€v.€City€ofÐ `X ÐDetroitóó,€808€F.2d€459,€465€(6th€Cir.€1986).€€Ð h` Ðà 4 àà Œ àThe€complaint€does€not€state€a€claim€of€denial€of€due€process€of€theÏdisciplinary€proceeding,€because€plaintiff€did€not€have€a€liberty€interest€in€his€securityÏstatus€protected€by€the€Constitution€of€the€United€States.€€Since€plaintiff€did€not€have€aÏliberty€interest,€he€could€not€establish€the€first€element€of€a€ðð1983€claim,€ð ðthat€he€hasÏbeen€deprived€of€a€right€ððsecured€by€the€Constitution€and€lawsðð€of€the€United€States.ðð€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àThe€leading€case€setting€forth€due€process€requirements€in€prisonÏdisciplinary€proceedings€is€òòWolff€v.€Mcdonnellóó,€418€U.S.€539,€94€S.Ct.€2963,€41Ð  -˜&& ÐL.Ed.2d€935€œ(1974).€€(A€liberty€interest€must€be€involved).›€€Ìà 4 àà Œ àIn€òòMeachum€v.€Fanoóó,€427€U.S.€215,€96€S.Ct.€2532,€49€L.Ed.2d€451Ð °1¨** Ð(1976),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€there€was€no€liberty€interest€created€by€theÏConstitution€of€the€State€of€Massachusetts€requiring€a€hearing€before€a€prisoner€wasÏtransferred€to€a€different€prison€where€the€conditions€were€substantially€less€favorable.€ÏIn€that€case,€several€inmates€were€transferred€to€a€maximum€security€facility€from€aÐ Ð9È22 Ðmedium€security€facility€due€to€the€suspicion€that€they€were€involved€in€nine€arsonÏfires€at€the€medium€security€facility.€€In€finding€no€liberty€interest,€the€òòMeachumóó€CourtÐ   Ðstated:ÌÓÓà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä à.€.€.€we€cannot€agree€that€any€change€in€the€conditions€ofÏconfinement€having€a€substantial€adverse€impact€on€the€prisonerÏinvolved€is€sufficient€to€invoke€the€protections€of€the€Due€ProcessÏClause.€.€.€.€[G]iven€a€valid€conviction,€the€criminal€defendant€has€beenÏconstitutionally€deprived€of€his€liberty€to€the€extent€that€the€State€mayÏconfine€him€and€subject€him€to€the€rules€of€its€prison€system€so€long€asÏthe€conditions€of€confinement€do€not€otherwise€violate€the€Constitution.€ÏThe€Constitution€does€not€require€that€the€State€have€more€than€oneÏprison€for€convicted€felons;€nor€does€it€guarantee€that€the€convictedÏprisoner€will€be€placed€in€any€particular€prison.€.€.€.€The€initial€decisionÏto€assign€the€convict€to€a€particular€institution€is€not€subject€to€auditÏunder€the€Due€Process€Clause,€although€the€degree€of€confinement€inÏone€prison€may€be€quite€different€from€that€in€another.€€The€convictionÏhas€sufficiently€extinguished€the€defendantððs€liberty€interest€to€empowerÏthe€State€to€confine€him€in€any€of€its€prisons.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌà0 4 àà0Œ 4(#4(#àà ä àNeither,€in€our€view,€does€the€Due€Process€Clause€in€and€of€itselfÏprotect€a€duly€convicted€prisoner€against€transfer€from€one€institution€toÏanother€within€the€state€prison€system.€€Confinement€in€any€of€theÏStateððs€institutions€is€within€the€normal€limits€or€range€of€custody€whichÏthe€conviction€has€authorized€the€State€to€impose.€€That€life€in€oneÏprison€is€much€more€disagreeable€than€in€another€does€not€in€itselfÏsignify€that€a€Fourteenth€Amendment€liberty€interest€is€implicated€whenÏa€prisoner€is€transferred€to€the€institution€with€the€more€severe€rules.Ð Œ (#Œ (# ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€At€224„225.Ð „&| Ðà 4 àà Œ àBased€on€the€foregoing,€a€transfer€to€a€more€severe€prison€facility€wouldÏnot€be€the€type€of€ð ðatypical€and€significant€hardshipðð€that€would€implicate€the€DueÏProcess€Clause.Ìà 4 àà Œ àThis€Court€addressed€this€situation€in€òòCompton€v.€Campbellóó,€No.Ð ¤.œ'' Ð01A01„9710„CH„00539,€1998€LEXIS€259€(Tenn.€App.€1998).€€œWe›€held€that€aÏreclassification€to€a€medium€custody€facility€from€a€minimum€custody€facility€is€notÏsuch€a€hardship€and€it€is€therefore€not€subject€to€due€process€protection.€€(òòQuotingÐ ¼4´-- МSandin€v.€Conneróó,›€115€œS.Ct.ññ€2293ññññ›€Aññññ€aññt›€2300.)Ð Ä6¼// Ðà 4 àà Œ àSince€there€was€œññno€ññññ›ññññnot€ññliberty›€interest€involved€in€this€case,€plaintiff€couldÐ Ì8Ä11 Ðnot€establish€the€first€element€of€a€ðð1983€claim.Ìà 4 àà Œ àWe€œconcludeññ,€therefore,ññ›€that€the€complaint€fails€to€state€a€ðð1983€claimÏagainst€any€of€the€defendants€and€œññwe›€therefore›€ññaffirm›€the€judgment€of€the€Trial€Court€and€remandÏwith€the€cost€of€the€appeal€assessed€to€the€appellant.ÌÓÓÌÌÌòòà 4 àÌóóà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì à__________________________Ð 80  Ðà 4 àà Œ àà ä àà < àà ” àà ì àHerschel€P.€Franks,€J.ÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌHouston€M.€Goddard,€P.J.ÌÌÌÌÌÌ___________________________ÌCharles€D.€Susano,€Jr.,€J.Ì