ÿWPCm …# VU:a %› 0(¡w@É4  , B4 v 0J~ 0TÈ 0^ 0hz 0râ 0|T 0†Ð 0V 1uæ U,[ 0d‡ U,ë U*B)ADCj B­ AMÊív~vÓ‚ D3U 0@ˆ AOÈÆ 0DÝ D/! BP˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 ,†r‰AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡ ”•î–U—˜g™šU›UœÓ€¨z!x))'ôÿ3|x¨C:\WPWIN60\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d####7Border 1dd d€-$Cþÿ << Gÿÿ ãÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€"ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€"XÔÌÌò òSeptember€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€"ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò%%%%'ÿÿdxd("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€ç´XXdædÈ7Ñ›à@ àò òIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌÌÌELDRED€L.€REID,à àà àà àà à)€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óPlaintiff/Appellant,à àà àò ò)€€Lake€Circuit€No.€95„7282Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)€€Appeal€No.€02A01„9601„CV„00016̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€&'$;+'h|h³` Å `€€Lß›à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌJERRY€STOVER€&€CHARLES€NOLES,€)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àó óDefendants/Appellees.à àò ò)ó óÌÌÌà@ àAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€LAKEÏCOUNTYÌà@ àAT€TIPTONVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌà@ àTHE€HONORABLE€JOE€G.€RILEY,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌÌò òELDRED€L.€REID,€pro€seÌó óTiptonville,€TennesseeÌÌÌÌò òCHARLES€W.€BURSONÌAttorney€General€&€ReporterÌÌLISA€T.€KIRKHAMÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌó óNashville,€TennesseeÌAttorneys€for€AppelleesÌÌÌÌÌÌÌò òAFFIRMEDÌÌÌÌÌó óà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌDAVID€R.€FARMER,€J.ÌÌHOLLY€KIRBY€LILLARD,€J.ÌÌó óœà àÌÌÌÓÓà àPlaintiff,€Eldred€Reid,€is€a€prisoner€currently€incarcerated€at€the€NorthwestÏÑ7€ç´XXdæXXdæ7ÑCorrectional€Center€in€Tiptonville,€Tennessee.€€Plaintiff€brought€this€suit€under€42ÏU.S.C.€ðð€1983,€alleging€that€various€officials€at€the€correctional€center€violated€hisÏconstitutional€rights.›Ìà àÌà àThe€events€prompting€plaintiff€to€file€the€present€case€are€as€follows.€€On€MayÏ30,€1995,€a€gang„related€incident€occurred€at€the€correctional€center€in€which€severalÏinmates€were€injured.€œ€In›€order€to€maintain€control€of€the€situation,€the€warden,€JerryÏStover,€ordered€a€lockdown€of€the€correctional€center.€œOn›€July€26,€1995,€another€gang„related€incident€occurred€that€resulted€in€injury€to€inmates.€€Again,€the€warden€orderedÏa€lockdown€of€the€correctional€center.€ÌÌà àPlaintiff€filed€a€complaint,€alleging€that€the€lockdowns€violated€his€rights€underÏthe€Due€Process€Clause,€the€Equal€Protection€Clause,€and€the€Cruel€and€UnusualÏPunishment€Clause€of€the€œConstitution.›ÌÌà àDefendants€moved€for€dismissal€or€in€the€alternative,€for€summary€judgment,€onÏgrounds€that€the€lockdown€did€not€restrain€plaintiffððs€freedom€to€such€a€degree€as€toÏcreate€a€liberty€interest€afforded€due€process€protection.€€Defendants€further€arguedÏthat€plaintiffððs€complaint€should€have€been€dismissed€for€failure€to€clearly€set€forth€inÏthe€complaint€that€he€sued€defendants€in€their€individual€capacities,€rather€than€in€theirÏcapacities€as€state€œofficials.€Finally,›€defendants€asserted€that€they€were€entitled€toÏqualified€immunity€because€they€had€no€reason€to€know€that€their€actions€violatedÏsome€clearly€established€right€of€plaintiff.€ÌÌà àWithout€opinion,€the€trial€court€granted€defendantsðð€motion€for€summaryÏjudgment€on€all€three€of€the€above€grounds.€€œThis›€appeal€followed.ÌÌà àAlthough€plaintiff€has€raised€a€myriad€of€issues€on€appeal,€we€are€constrainedÏto€review€only€those€issues€that€were€raised€in€the€trial€court.€€òòSimpson€v.€FrontierÏCommunity€Credit€Unionóó,€810€S.W.2d€147,€153€(Tenn.€1991).€€Consequently,€the€soleÏissue€for€our€review€is€whether€the€trial€court€erred€in€granting€summary€judgment€as€toÏplaintiffððs€constitutional€claims.ÌÌà àOn€appeal,€we€review€a€trial€courtððs€judgment€granting€summary€judgment€òòdeÏnovoóó.€€In€evaluating€a€motion€for€summary€judgment,€this€court€must€take€the€strongestÏlegitimate€view€of€the€evidence€in€favor€of€the€nonmovant,€allow€all€reasonableÏinferences€in€favor€of€the€nonmovant,€and€discard€all€countervailing€evidence.€òò€Byrd€v.ÏHallóó,€847€S.W.2d€208,€210„211€(Tenn.€1993).€€Summary€judgment€is€appropriate€whenÍthe€pleadings,€depositions,€and€affidavits€show€that€there€is€no€genuine€issue€ofÏmaterial€fact€and€that,€therefore,€the€moving€party€is€entitled€to€judgment€as€a€matter€ofÏlaw.€€òòId.óó€at€211.€€The€facts€of€the€present€case€are€virtually€undisputed,€which€makesÏthis€case€particularly€appropriate€for€resolution€by€summary€judgment.ÌÌà àSection€1983€of€Title€42€of€the€United€State€Code€affords€a€civil€remedy€forÏviolation€of€constitutional€rights.€€This€section€provides:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àà8 àEvery€person€who,€under€color€of€any€statute,€ordinance,Ïregulation,€custom,€or€usage,€of€any€State€or€Territory€or€theÏDistrict€of€Columbia,€subjects,€or€causes€to€be€subjected,Ïany€citizen€of€the€United€States€or€other€person€within€theÏjurisdiction€thereof€to€the€deprivation€of€any€rights,Ïprivileges,€or€immunities€secured€by€the€Constitution€andÏlaws,€shall€be€liable€to€the€party€injured€in€an€action€at€law,Ïsuit€in€equity,€or€other€property€proceeding€€for€redress.ÌÌœ42›€U.S.C.€ðð€œ1983.Ì›ÌÓÓAccordingly,€the€plaintiff€must€establish€that€the€defendants,€while€acting€under€color€ofÏstate€law,€deprived€the€plaintiff€of€some€right,€privilege,€or€immunity€secured€by€eitherÏthe€Constitution€or€other€law€of€the€United€States.Ìà àÌà àWe€will€first€address€plaintiffððs€contention€that€the€lockdowns€violated€his€dueÏprocess€rights.ÌÌà àA€recent€U.S.€Supreme€Court€decision€abandoned€the€analysis€that€hadÏpreviously€been€employed€in€determining€whether€a€state€has€created€a€protectedÏliberty€interest€for€prisoners.€€òòSandin€v.€Conneróó,€115€S.€Ct.€2293€(1995).€€In€òòSandinóó,€theÍCourt€set€forth€the€current€standard€as€follows:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à[T]hese€[liberty]€interests€will€be€generally€limited€to€freedomÏfrom€restraint€which,€while€not€exceeding€the€sentence€inÏsuch€an€unexpected€manner€as€to€give€rise€to€protection€byÏthe€Due€Process€Clause€of€its€own€force,€nonethelessÏimposes€atypical€and€significant€hardship€on€the€inmate€inÏrelation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.ÌÌòòÓÓId.óó€at€2295€(internal€citations€omitted).€€ÌÌà àIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€plaintiff€has€simply€alleged€in€a€conclusory€fashion€thatÏthe€lockdowns€deprived€him€of€his€rights.€€He€has€failed€to€proffer€any€evidence€that€theÏlockdown€was€unusually€harsh€or€was€instituted€for€any€reason€other€than€safety€andÏprison€security.€€We€deem€it€to€be€clear€that€the€restrictions€imposed€as€a€result€of€theÏgang„related€incidents€did€not€operate€to€place€any€ð ðatypical€and€significant€hardshipððÏon€the€plaintiff€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.€Ìà àÌà àWe€therefore€conclude€that€the€trial€court€properly€granted€summary€judgment€inÏfavor€of€the€defendants€with€respect€to€plaintiffððs€due€process€claims.€€An€inmate€has€noÏliberty€interest€in€remaining€free€of€disciplinary€or€administrative€segregation€becauseÏsuch€segregation€does€not€impose€an€atypical€or€significant€hardship€on€the€inmate.€ÏòòSandin€v.€Conneróó,€115€S.€Ct.€œat›€2300.€€In€this€case,€the€plaintiff€has€failed€toÏdemonstrate€that€the€lockdown€imposed€an€atypical€or€significant€hardship€on€him€inÏrelation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.ÌÌà àSimilarly,€plaintiff€has€adduced€no€evidence€in€support€of€his€contention€that€theÍlockdown€constituted€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€In€order€for€a€prison€official€toÏviolate€the€Cruel€and€Unusual€Punishment€Clause,€the€official€must€be€ð ðdeliberatelyÏindifferentðð€to€an€inmateððs€safety€or€health.€€òòFarmer€v.€Brennanóó,€114€S.€Ct.€1970,€1977„78€(1994).€€The€record€evinces€no€ð ðdeliberate€indifferenceðð€on€the€part€of€defendants,Ïnor€is€there€any€indication€that€plaintiffððs€health€or€safety€was€adversely€affected.€€ÌÌà àFinally,€we€find€no€merit€in€plaintiffððs€equal€protection€claim.€€Even€assuming€thatÏplaintiff€could€demonstrate€that€the€defendants€violated€some€right€afforded€to€himÏunder€the€equal€protection€clause,€we€would€nevertheless€have€to€find€that€theÏchallenged€actions€were€not€reasonably€related€to€a€legitimate€penological€interest€inÏorder€to€impose€liability€upon€defendants.€€òòTurner€v.€Safleyóó,€482€U.S.€78,€89€(1987).€ÏAs€the€court€stated€in€the€recent€case€of€òòRawls€v.€Sundquistóó,€No.€3„96„0107,€1996€WLÏ288622€(M.D.€Tenn.€May€23,€1996):ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àUnder€the€equal€protection€clause,€prison€administratorsÏare€entitled€to€place€restrictions€on€the€opportunities,€rightsÏand€privileges€accorded€protective€populations,€providedÏthat€those€restrictions€are€rational€rather€than€arbitrary€andÏcapricious.ÌÌòòId.óó€at€*6.€€ÌœÌ›ÌÓÓà àUnder€the€facts€of€this€case,€plaintiff€cannot€show€that€defendantsðð€actions€inÏimposing€lockdowns€lack€any€rational€basis.€€It€is€uncontroverted€that€the€two€gang„related€incidents€necessitated€special€measures€in€order€to€control€the€situation.ÌÌà àMoreover,€the€Supreme€Court€has€concluded€that€constitutional€safeguards€areÍrelaxed€with€respect€to€prison€lockdowns€when€the€welfare€and€security€of€the€prisonÏare€threatened.€€òòHewitt€v.€Helmsóó,€459€U.S.€460,€467€(1983).€€When€evaluating€theÏconstitutionality€of€the€conduct€of€prison€officials,€the€courts€should€afford€them€ð ðwide„ranging€deference€in€the€adoption€and€execution€of€policies€and€practices€that€in€theirÏjudgment€are€needed€to€preserve€internal€order€and€discipline€and€to€maintainÏinstitutional€security.ðð€€òòBell€v.€Wolfishóó,€441€U.S.€520,€547€(1979).ÌÌà àAs€an€additional€basis€for€affirming€the€trial€courtððs€grant€of€summary€judgment,Ïwe€hold€that€the€defendants€were€entitled€to€qualified€immunity.€€Prison€officials€whoÏperform€discretionary€functions€are€shielded€from€liability€for€civil€damages€when€theirÏð ðconduct€does€not€violate€clearly€established€statutory€or€constitutional€rights€of€whichÏa€reasonable€person€would€have€known.ðð€€òòHarlow€v.€Fitzgeraldóó,€457€U.S.€800,€818Ï(1982).€€In€accordance€with€the€foregoing€discussion,€it€is€our€opinion€that€defendantsððÏconduct€satisfied€this€standard€under€the€facts€of€the€case€at€bar.€ÌÌà àHaving€concluded€that€plaintiff€has€failed€to€demonstrate€that€there€exists€aÏgenuine€issue€of€material€fact€for€trial,€we€affirm€the€judgment€of€the€court€below€inÏgranting€defendantsðð€motion€for€summary€œjudgment.€€Costs€on€appeal€are€taxed€toÏplaintiff€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ïóóà àà àà àà àà àà àà àà àHIGHERS,€J.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌFARMER,€J.ÌÌÌÌòò€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€óóÌLILLARD,€J.›à àà àà àà àà àà àà à