ÿWPC~ á ¸V4vJÑc¸\ÓÇYñ¨çCñj™Â“ú]£<¹‚ŠJ²"£8ÅùgT°6³ÑŸI4ðuÔå½-Õ)a›<’”ú#W³ÿ¢LÖ‘7æ~üOµ^ÌVl'|´0äL{wQ×0SAIMÿäSâ~>Ÿˆ{;‡ã VݧÕõž6-º<¶Ñ[uE“Ê?‘ÔWÜUŸÄ‰Ô òOA‡Ï‹pÓßö!˼×Xÿïú²šs¢•m{`H¬)wì{Ì?gã»J£eñ²©Ì§¯Y&JÉ)ÛÇ°Té¿=4¡úv?mûÒ=ªFÕ2ÑîÅ—~ 0dŽ²ÓÇ[Š’¶Þ2»P™Jmše’ÜS‘O ä1a†bJã¢`Åž¦M}½ºâËmÆxù>‡I1§ MºÍF7 š?K‡#ÍëšÚî¡ §ífZ|C¾ö^ƒMA9I2~,Ž‹Yè\"Öü³G°a«´ñŠ–ü Ô.6!É/®i ±Ñ”{±x"±Lžà(EŠ]¹Ö’™ œ–BpöÍnÍò2édSú§Yšñ»—±.¬îÁ#užë8ó D(êÙ´úðÓM~ÿ `ÀYÌPèº/8ï°9Òü$a#Òâ*# LU :W %‘ 0(—b ¿UFËU:w@M0 0l½ 0D) ) 4m   U:˜ -Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Ò Bÿ AQ Æm 0D3 0Dw 0D»» D/ÿÿ B. D3K˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -<4šÛ 9Z ‹.Courier New Regular øÝ ƒ"¯"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€XèXXXÔÔ€XXèÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XèXÔÐ  ÐÌJuly€16,€1999ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAhÔó ó,c½¬AZ‹"Arial Regular UUEDDÓ€  &Ò€°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€ô6ÖôXXÔÓ  ÓÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà Ø àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ€ô6Öôôô6ÖÔMr.€Wellington€also€claimed€that€the€defendants€had€violated€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€41„21„404,Ð ° Ðwhich€reads:ÌÌà8 Ø àò òUnauthorized€means€of€punishment.ó ó„„€No€convict€shall€be€punished€in€any€way€otherÐ X Ðthan€is€provided€in€this€title,€except€by€authority€of€the€commissioner€of€correction.Ð Ø ü!Ø ü! ÐÌà Ø àWhile€this€statute€establishes€an€important€principle€for€the€effective€governance€of€our€prisonsÏand€for€the€protection€of€the€constitutional€rights€of€inmates,€it€does€not€appear€to€create€a€private€rightÏof€action€for€its€violation.ÌÔ‡ô. ôôô6ÖÔ((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó©yË&Eÿÿ3|x ,ÄâK AZ‹"Arial Regular #Ò€°ÒÒ„°ÒÓ  ÓÔ€ô6ÖôXXÔÝ ƒ üÝÿÝà Ø àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝWe€agree€with€the€chancellor€that€the€alleged€verbal€threats€or€harassment€do€not€rise€to€theÐ ° Ðlevel€of€an€Eighth€Amendment€violation. d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý(3¯$££Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýññ›ññÒ€°ÒÒ„°ÒÑ„°ÑÑTR[¤ AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ7€èXXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  Ñò òÔ€¼Fs¼XXÔÓ  Óñ ñññßr€ )<,(j 8` `€€@Eô±` 8ttxP,°ð  rßñññ ññ ññ ññ ñññ›ñññ ññ ñßt€ )>.*jxà` `€€@EÔ¾` 8ttxP öð È tß›ñ ñà@  êàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌà@¦¦(êàAT€NASHVILLEó óÔ€XèX¼¼FsÔˆÐ Ä ÐÌÌÌÌRUSSELL€WELLINGTON,à 8 àà  à)Ð p À Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à àà 8 àà  à)Ð < Œ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ð " r  ÐœVS›.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9807„CH„00363Ð X  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ î>  ÐROBERT€S.€œLEDFORD›,€DAVID€ELAM,à  à)à è àDavidson€Chanceryà H! àà  # àÐ Ô$  ÐRICHARD€MERCHANT,€JASONà 8 àà  à)à è àNo.€97„4154„IIIÐ º  ÐBROOKS,€œCPL›.€SCOTT,€SANDRAà  à)Ð  ð  ÐHALL,€WARDEN€œRICKY›€J.€BELL,à  à)Ð †Ö  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð R¢ ÐÌÌà@U U êàAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYˆÌà@#êàAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@Æ Æ êàTHE€HONORABLE€ELLEN€œHOBBS›€LYLE,€CHANCELLORˆÌÌÌRUSSELL€WELLINGTON,€#122766ÌœR.M.S.I.›€#1„B„209Ì7475€œCockrill›€Bend€Industrial€RoadÌNashville,€Tennessee€37209„1010Ìà Ø àPro€œSe›/Plaintiff/AppellantÌÌPAUL€G.€SUMMERSÌAttorney€General€and€ReporterÌÌPAMELA€S.€œLORCH›ÌAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌ425€Fifth€Avenue€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37243„0488Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Appellees€œLedford›,€Elam,€€Merchant,€Ìà Ø àBrooks,€Scott€and€BellÌÌWILLIAM€BARRY€WOODÌ326€Washington€Square€BuildingÌ222€Second€Avenue,€NorthÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà Ø àAttorney€for€Appellee€HallÌÌÌà@  êàAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€REVERSED€IN€PART;ˆÌà@¿¿(êàAND€REMANDEDˆÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌCONCUR:ÌKOCH,€J.ÌCAIN,€J.ÌÐ  :^5;Ï ÐÓÓò òÔ€„Ì&„XXèÔòòà@tt(êàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óÔ€XèX„„Ì&ԈР° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àA€prisoner€in€the€custody€of€the€Department€of€Correction€claimed€thatÏfive€prison€guards€brutally€assaulted€him€while€he€was€shackled€in€full€restraints.€€HeÏalso€claimed€that€another€guard€and€the€warden€responded€to€the€alleged€assault€inÏa€negligent€way.€€The€trial€court€dismissed€the€claims€against€all€the€defendants,Ïstating€among€other€things€that€they€possessed€absolute€immunity€for€their€actions.ÏWe€affirm€the€dismissal€of€the€warden,€and€of€the€guard€who€allegedly€failed€toÏprovide€timely€medical€help,€but€we€reverse€as€to€the€five€remaining€defendants.€ÌÌò òà@bbêàI.€€The€Allegations€of€the€Complaintó óˆÐ ¤ô ÐÌà Ø à€à 0 àThe€plaintiff,€Russell€Wellington,€is€a€prisoner€at€the€œRiverbend›€MaximumÐ H˜ ÐSecurity€Prison,€who€was€obviously€regarded€as€a€nuisance€by€some€of€the€guards.ÏThe€following€excerpts€from€his€hand„written€complaint,€which€was€filed€on€DecemberÏ16,€1997,€convey€the€flavor€of€the€interactions€between€the€defendants€and€Mr.ÏWellington:€ÌÒ„ÒÓÓÒ0 €Òà ˆ à5.€€On€September€29,€1997,€plaintiff€was€moved€fromÏunit€#(1)€one,€at€œRiverbend›€prison€in€Nashville€to€unit€#(3)Ïthree€at€the€same€prison.ÌÌà ˆ à6.€€On€September€30,€1997,€at€or€about€9:30€a.m.Ïdefendant€David€Elam€entered€B„pod€of€unit€#(3)€three€andÏthe€plaintiff€got€his€attention€and€inquired€of€the€unitsðð€rulesÏand€regulations.€€Defendant€responded€with€hostileÏarrogance,€stating€that€itððs€always€something€with€the€plaintiff,Ïand€that€the€plaintiff€would€get€ð ðnothingðð€from€him€or€his€staffÏpertaining€to€unit€rules€and€procedures.ÌÌà ˆ à7.€€On€October€16,€1997€plaintiff€filed€an€inmateÏgrievance,€alleging€ð ðfailure€to€communicate€by€unit€#(3)€threeÏteam€members.ÌÌà ˆ à8.€€On€October€22,€1997,€a€hearing€was€had€onÏplaintiffððs€October€16,€1997€grievance.€€Defendants€Elam€andÏœLedford›€acted€as€the€Grievance€Committee.€€Defendant€ElamÏbegan€the€hearing€by€badgering€the€plaintiff,€and€accusingÏhim€of€being€a€problem.ÌÌà ˆ à9.€€On€October€17,€1997,€plaintiff€sent€(3)€threeÏpersonal€documents€to€defendant€Elam,€by€defendantÏœLedford›;€these€documents€pointed€out€the€reason€plaintiffÏwas€moved€from€unit€#(1)€one,€to€unit€#(3)€three.€€DefendantÐ º: 6; ÐElam€took€the€documents,€and€refused€to€return€them€toÏplaintiff.€ÌÌà ˆ à10.€€On€October€28,€1997,€plaintiff€filed€an€inmateÏgrievance,€alleging€ð ðrefusal€to€return€personal€documents€byÏUnit€Team€Members.ððà  àÐ P   ÐÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€complaint€continues€in€the€same€vein,€with€Mr.€WellingtonÏcontinuing€to€attempt€to€register€his€grievances,€and€Officer€Elam€refusing€toÏcooperate,€and€thereby€generating€more€grievances.€€On€the€morning€of€NovemberÏ5,€1997,€the€plaintiff€was€escorted€to€Officer€Elamððs€office€to€have€some€legalÏdocuments€notarized:€ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ à15.€€Plaintiff€was€wearing€full€restraints.ÌÌà ˆ à16.€€Upon€entering€defendant€Elamððs€office,€he€wasÏsurrounded€by€defendants€Brooks,€Elam,€œLedford›€andÏMerchant.ÌÌà ˆ à17.€€The€issue€of€plaintiffððs€release€from€administrativeÏsegregation€(A.S.)€was€being€discussed.€ÌÌà ˆ à18.€€During€the€course€of€the€conversation€defendantÏElam€became€enraged€with€anger,€and€made€numerousÏobnoxious€and€hostile€statements€to€plaintiff.ÌÌà ˆ à19.€€Plaintiff€then€inquired€of€defendant€Elam€why€heÏalways€insulted€him€each€time€they€met.ÌÌà ˆ à20.€€Defendant€Elamððs€response€to€plaintiffððs€inquiryÏwas€ð ðBecause€Iððm€in€charge€in€this€unit,€and€I€can€do€anythingÏthat€I€want€to.ðð€With€that€the€(œA.S›)€issue€was€discontinued.ÌÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àOfficer€Brooks€refused€to€notarize€Mr.€Wellingtonððs€document€becauseÏof€the€plaintiffððs€use€of€an€a.k.a.€name€on€the€documents.€€Officer€Elam€then€statedÏthat€he€wanted€the€plaintiff€out€of€his€office.€€At€that€point,€the€situation€became€uglier:ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ à27.€€Plaintiff€then€gather€(sic)€his€documents,€turned€toÏleave€defendant€Elamððs€office;€as€plaintiff€stepped€to€the€doorÏof€Defendant€œLedford›ððs€office€and€grasped€the€door€knob,€heÏwas€attacked€by€defendant€Elam,€who€grabbed€plaintiffððs€leftÏarm€and€rammed€plaintiff€into€the€door,€causing€him€toÏstumble€into€Unit€#(3)€three€center€core,€where€plaintiff€wasÏthen€attacked€by€defendants€Brooks,€Scott,€Merchant€andÏœLedford›.ÌÌà ˆ à28.€€Defendant€Brooks€grabbed€plaintiffððs€right€arm€andÏbegan€twisting€it€violently€as€he€punched€plaintiff€in€the€ribs.Ð ;`6: Їà ˆ à29.€€Defendant€Scott€had€a€hand€around€plaintiffððsÏthroat€as€he€struck€plaintiff€over€the€head€with€a€securityÏradio.ÌÌà ˆ à30.€€Defendant€Merchant€had€a€hold€of€the€chainÏaround€plaintiffððs€waist,€and€was€pulling€viciously€on€it.ÌÌà ˆ à31.€€As€plaintiff€was€shoved€back€into€the€defendantsððÏoffices,€defendant€œLedford›€sprayed€a€chemical€spray€(FreezeÏplus€p)€into€plaintiffððs€eyes,€nose,€mouth;€which€was€openedÏdue€to€defendant€Scottððs€grip€on€his€throat.ÌÌà ˆ à32.€€After€the€assault,€plaintiff€was€dragged€outside€intoÏthe€recreation€area,€thrown€in€a€cage,€and€left€for€over€anÏhour€laying€in€the€cage,€still€wearing€full€restraints.ÌÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÌà@««êàò òII.€€Proceedings€in€the€Trial€Court€ó óˆÐ  ð ÐÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Wellington€claimed€that€the€defendants€had€acted€under€color€of€lawÏto€violate€the€constitutional€prohibition€against€cruel€and€unusual€punishment.€€òòSeeóóÐ @ ÐAmendment€8,€U.S.€Constitution,€and€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€He€asked€the€court€to€awardÐ  p Ðhim€$10,000€in€compensatory€damages€and€$10,000€in€punitive€damages€againstÏeach€defendant.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€State€moved€on€behalf€of€the€defendants€to€dismiss€the€complaintÏfor€lack€of€subject€matter€jurisdiction€and€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€canÏbe€granted.€€€òòSeeóó€Rules€12.01(1)€and€(6)€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.Ð `'°"% ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiff€filed€a€number€of€motions,€including€a€Motion€for€Writ€ofÏHabeas€Corpus€ad€Testificandum,€to€be€allowed€to€appear€at€the€hearing€of€the€case.Ð -P(+ ÐòòSee€óóTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€29„21„107.€€The€motion€was€denied.€€At€the€hearing,€the€trialÐ à.0*- Ðcourt€denied€the€plaintiffððs€remaining€motions,€and€granted€the€defendantsðð€Motion€toÐ À0,/ ÐDismiss.€€In€her€memorandum€and€order,€the€chancellor€stated:€€ð ð[œt]he›€plaintiff€assertsÏthat€his€rights€were€violated€when€defendant€correctional€officer€David€Elam€allegedlyÏverbally€harassed€the€plaintiff€on€September€30,€1997,€October€22,€1997€andÏNovember€5,€and€18,€1997€and€when€defendant€correctional€officers€.€.€.€allegedlyÏphysically€restrained€the€plaintiff€on€November€5,€1997.ðð€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€court€characterized€the€plaintiffððs€claim€as€a€ð ðnegligent€tort€action.ððÏSince€the€defendants€were€state€employees,€and€their€actions€were€arguablyÏperformed€within€the€scope€of€their€employment,€she€concluded€that€under€the€termsÏof€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€9„8„307(h),€ð ðthe€defendants€have€absolute€immunity€from€theseÏclaims.ðð€€The€court€also€stated€that€ð ðthe€factual€basis€of€the€plaintiffððs€complaint€areÏnumerous€incidents€of€verbal€harassment€by€defendant€David€Elam.€VerbalÏharassment,€however,€does€not€rise€to€the€level€of€an€eighth€amendment€violation€andÏdoes€not€state€a€cause€of€action€for€constitutional€violations.ðð€ÌÌà Ø à€€à 0 àThe€plaintiff€filed€a€motion€for€relief€from€judgment,€in€which€he€pointedÐ Ð  Ðout€that€he€was€claiming€that€the€defendants€were€guilty€of€more€than€mere€verbalÏharassment€or€physical€restraint.€€The€chancellor€agreed,€but€while€she€agreed€to€alterÏthe€language,€she€allowed€the€result€to€remain€the€same.€€In€a€memorandum€andÏorder€that€were€filed€on€October€22,€1998,€the€trial€court€stated:ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ àð ðThe€Court€agrees€that€its€memorandum€should€beÏaltered€to€reflect€that€the€petitioner€asserts€that€he€wasÏbrutally€beaten,€sprayed€with€chemical€and€fully€restrained.ÌÌà ˆ àð ðThese€claims,€however,€seek€compensatory€andÏpunitive€damages.€€The€Chancery€Court€is€not€permitted€toÏaward€such€unliquidated€damages.€€Tenn.€Code.€Ann.€ðð€16„¼11„102(a).€€The€Court,€therefore,€does€not€have€jurisdiction€toÏconsider€the€petitionerððs€eighth€amendment€claim€and€theÏCourtððs€dismissal€of€the€same€on€June€17,€1998€isÏappropriate.€€€ÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÌÓÓÌà Ø àThis€appeal€followed.̛̜Ð ;`6: ÐÓÓà@ííêàò òIII.€€Failure€to€State€a€ClaimˆÐ ° ÐÌà@XXêàa.€€The€Allegations€of€Assault€ˆÌ€ó óÐ €Ð ÐÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€purpose€of€a€motion€under€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€for€failure€toÏstate€a€claim€upon€which€relief€may€be€granted€is€to€test€the€sufficiency€of€theÏcomplaint.€òò€œMerriman›€v.€Smithóó,€599€S.W.2d€548€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€Such€a€motionÐ `  Ðadmits€the€truth€of€all€relevant€and€material€allegations,€ð ðbut€asserts€that€such€facts€doÏnot€constitute€a€cause€of€action€as€a€matter€of€law.ðð€òò€œPursell›€v.€First€American€NationalÐ Ð  ÐBankóó,€937€S.W.2d€838€(Tenn.€1996).€€In€examining€a€complaint€in€the€face€of€such€aÐ ° Ðmotion,€the€trial€court€should€therefore€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€favor€of€theÏplaintiff,€taking€all€the€allegations€of€fact€therein€as€true.€òò€Sullivan€v.€American€Homes,Ð pÀ ÐInc.óó,€605€S.W.2d€246€(Tenn.€App.€1980).€€Dismissal€under€Rule€12.02(6)€is€warrantedÐ P  Ðonly€when€no€set€of€facts€will€entitle€the€plaintiff€to€relief,€or€when€the€complaint€isÏtotally€lacking€in€clarity€or€specificity.€òò€Dobbs€v.€œGuenther›óó,€846€S.W.2d€270€(Tenn.€App.Ð ` Ð1992).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIn€the€present€case,€Mr.€Wellingtonððs€allegations€are€not€lacking€in€clarityÏor€specificity.€€They€clearly€describe€the€use€of€excessive€physical€force€by€stateÏemployees€against€a€prisoner€whose€actions€did€not€pose€any€imminent€danger€toÏthem,€for€no€apparent€purpose€other€than€to€punish€him€for€questioning€the€limits€ofÏtheir€authority.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Such€conduct,€if€it€can€be€proved,€cannot€be€tolerated€in€a€societyÐ 0*€%( Ðwhich€claims€to€be€based€upon€the€rule€of€law.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àMr.€Wellington€has€stated€a€claim€for€a€possible€violation€of€the€EighthÏAmendment€prohibition€against€cruel€and€unusual€punishment€(as€well€as€of€theÏparallel€prohibition€in€Article€I,€ðð€17€of€the€Tennessee€Constitution).€€If€proven,€hisÏallegations€can€support€a€judgment€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€for€deprivation€ofÏconstitutional€rights€under€color€of€state€law.€Ð P7 26 Їà Ø àà 0 àWe€do€not€agree€with€the€trial€court€that€the€defendants€are€immune€fromÏliability€for€their€actions€by€virtue€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€9„8„307(h).€€That€statute€is€partÏof€the€act€establishing€the€Tennessee€Claims€Commission€to€hear€and€determineÏclaims€against€the€State.€€The€effect€of€the€act€is€to€remove€the€sovereign€immunityÏof€the€State€for€injuries€caused€by€the€negligent€actions€of€its€officers€and€itsÏemployees.€€As€a€corollary,€the€employees€themselves€are€immunized€from€liabilityÏarising€from€the€same€acts€for€which€the€state€has€consented€to€be€sued.€€But€it€isÏclear€that€the€grant€of€immunity€is€not€unlimited.€€The€statute€reads€in€relevant€part:€ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ à(h)€State€officers€and€employees€are€absolutelyÏimmune€from€liability€for€acts€or€omissions€within€the€scope€ofÏthe€officer's€or€employee's€office€or€employment,€except€forÏwillful,€malicious,€or€criminal€acts€or€omissions€or€for€acts€orÏomissions€done€for€personal€gain.€€ÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€acts€alleged€on€the€face€of€the€complaint€are€not€merely€negligent,Ïas€the€trial€court€initially€stated,€but€they€appear€to€fall€within€the€definition€of€acts€forÏwhich€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(h)€affords€no€immunity.€€The€chancellor€herself€mayÏhave€recognized€this€fact,€for€after€modifying€her€characterization€of€the€plaintiffððsÏclaim,€she€appears€to€have€altered€the€basis€upon€which€she€dismissed€the€complaint.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€accordingly€reverse€the€dismissal€of€the€claims€against€defendantsÏRobert€S.€œLedford›,€David€Elam,€Jason€Brooks,€Richard€Merchant€and€Corporal€ScottÏfor€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€can€be€granted.€€In€reversing€the€trialÏcourt,€we€express€no€opinion€as€the€œtruth›€of€Mr.€Wellingtonððs€allegations,€or€as€to€theÏultimate€merits€of€his€claim,€but€merely€assert€that€he€has€demonstrated€that€he€isÏentitled€to€his€day€in€court.ÌÌà@FFêàò òb.€€The€Claim€against€Sergeant€Halló ó€ˆÐ 3à.2 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€claims€against€the€other€two€defendants€stand€upon€a€differentÏâ âfooting.€€Mr.€Wellingtonððs€claim€against€officer€Sandra€Hall€is€based€upon€her€failureÐ 09€48 Ðto€promptly€arrange€for€medical€help€after€he€was€allegedly€thrown€into€a€cage€in€fullÏrestraints:€€Ìâ âÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ à33.€€Second€shift€officers€removed€plaintiff€from€theÏcage,€and€removed€the€restraints.ÌÌà ˆ à34.€€Plaintiff€made€a€request€to€the€second€shift€officerÏin€charge€„€Sergeant€Sandra€Hall,€to€be€seen€by€medical,€dueÏto€complications€in€breathing,€and€usual€(sic)€problems,€andÏserious€head€pains;€this€request€was€made€at€2:15€p.m.,€orÏabout.ÌÌà ˆ à35.€€At€or€about€7:20€p.m.,€while€being€escorted€fromÏthe€recreation€area€plaintiff€passed„out€in€the€pod,€and€wasÏcarried€there€over€night.à  à€Ð À ÐÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€stated€that€ð ðdeliberateÏindifference€to€serious€medical€needs€of€prisoners€constitutes€the€unnecessary€andÏwanton€infliction€of€pain€œproscribed›€by€the€Eighth€Amendment.€òò€Estelle€v.€Gambleóó,€429Ð @ ÐU.S.€97,€104€(1976).€€This€simple€statement€implies€that€two€necessary€componentsÏare€required€to€implicate€the€Eighth€Amendment:€a€subjective€component€involving€theÏmotivations€of€the€individual€who€denies€appropriate€medical€care€to€the€injured€party;Ïand€an€objective€component,€involving€the€seriousness€of€the€unmet€medical€need.Ì€Ìà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiff€does€not€allege€that€Sergeant€Hall€acted€deliberately,Ïmaliciously,€intentionally€or€criminally€in€failing€to€respond€promptly€to€Mr.€WellingtonððsÏrequest,€nor€do€we€perceive€in€the€facts€recited€by€him€any€indications€of€such€motive.€ÏThus,€the€claim€against€Sergeant€Hall€sounds€in€negligence.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€United€States€Supreme€Court€has€ruled€that€actions€brought€underÏ42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€cannot€be€based€on€negligent€conduct.€òò€Daniels€v.€Williamsóó,€474Ð À0,/ ÐU.S.€327€(1986).€€òòSee€alsoóó€òòShell€v.€Stateóó,€893€S.W.2d€416€(Tenn.€1995).€€Such€aÐ  2ð-1 Ðclaim€would€be€better€addressed€in€the€Claims€Commission,€which€while€grantingÏimmunity€to€the€negligent€employee,€makes€the€State€answer€in€damages€for€herÏnegligence.€€The€trial€court€did€not€err€in€dismissing€the€claim€against€Sergeant€Hall.ÌÐ  :p59 Ðà@yyêàò òc.€€The€Claim€Against€Warden€Belló ó€ˆÐ ° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€plaintiffððs€claim€against€Warden€œRicky›€Bell€is€based€upon€theÏwardenððs€failure€to€take€any€disciplinary€actions€against€the€five€guards€after€theÏplaintiff€wrote€a€letter€to€him€about€the€assault.€€The€plaintiff€also€claimed€that€theÏwarden€knew€of€earlier€incidents€of€cruel€or€harsh€treatment€against€other€inmates€byÏdefendants€Elam,€œLedford›€and€Brooks,€but€did€nothing€about€them.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àA€claim€filed€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€must€allege€that€the€defendant€wasÏpersonally€involved€in€the€alleged€unconstitutional€conduct:ÌÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ àð ðSection€1983€liability€will€not€be€imposed€solely€uponÏthe€basis€of€respondeat€superior.€€There€must€be€a€showingÏthat€the€supervisor€encouraged€the€specific€incident€ofÏmisconduct€or€in€some€other€way€directly€participated€in€it.€€AtÏa€minimum,€a€ðð€1983€plaintiff€must€show€that€a€supervisoryÏofficial€at€least€implicitly€authorized,€approved€or€knowinglyÏacquiesced€in€the€unconstitutional€conduct€by€the€offendingÏsubordinate.ðð€ÌÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒòòœBellamy›€v.€Bradleyóó,€729€F.2d€416,€421€(œ6th›€œCircuit€1984).›Ð à0 Ѐ€ÌÓÓÌà Ø àà 0 àInsofar€as€Mr.€Wellingtonððs€claim€refers€to€the€wardenððs€failure€to€actÏòòafteróó€the€alleged€unconstitutional€conduct€by€his€subordinates,€it€fails€to€establish€aÐ €%Ð # Ðsufficient€basis€for€believing€that€the€warden€was€personally€involved€in€those€eventsÏthemselves.€€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àFurther,€Mr.€Wellington€does€not€offer€any€specifics€to€support€hisÏallegations€of€prior€incidents€of€brutality€at€the€prison€involving€some€of€the€sameÏguards,€or€that€the€warden€was€aware€of€such€incidents.€€œConclusory›€allegations€areÏnot€sufficient€to€state€a€claim€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983.€òò€œChapman›€v.€City€of€Detroitóó,Ð  2ð-1 Ð808€F.2d€459,€465€(œ6th›€Circuit€1986).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àIf€it€is€valid€at€all,€the€claim€against€Warden€Bell,€like€the€claim€againstÏSergeant€Hall,€would€sound€in€negligence.€€If€the€earlier€incidents€did€in€fact€occur,€heÐ  :p59 Ðcould€possibly€be€guilty€of€negligent€supervision,€even€if€he€was€not€aware€of€them.ÏOnce€again,€such€a€claim€would€best€be€addressed€in€the€context€of€a€proceedingÏagainst€the€State€in€the€Claims€Commission.Ìà Ø àÌà@ÿÿ&êàò òIV.€€Jurisdictionó óˆÐ 0 € ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€Chancellor€correctly€noted€that€the€legislature€has€not€granted€theÏChancery€Court€jurisdiction€over€cases€involving€unliquidated€damages€for€personalÏinjuries.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„102(a).€€However€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„102(b)Ïindicates€that€when€such€a€case€is€filed€in€chancery€court,€and€objection€is€taken€toÏthe€courtððs€jurisdiction,€the€court€may€transfer€it€to€Circuit€Court.€€In€òòFlowers€v.€DyerÐ pÀ ÐCountyóó,€830€S.W.2d€51€(Tenn.€1992),€our€Supreme€Court€stated€that€ð ð[œi]mplicit›€in€theÐ P  Ðprovisions€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„11„102€is€the€positive€inference€that€where€aÏjurisdictional€objection€has€been€made,€such€a€transfer€is€mandated.ðð€€830€S.W.2d€atÏ53.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€State€attempts€to€distinguish€this€case€from€òòFlowers€óóon€the€basisÐ °"  Ðthat€òòFlowersóó€involved€a€claim€under€the€Governmental€Tort€Liability€Act€(œGTLA›),€Tenn.Ð $à" ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€29„20„101,€while€the€present€case€does€not.€€But€the€òòFlowersóó€court€didÐ p&À!$ Ðnot€limit€its€holding€to€œGTLA›€cases,€and€there€appears€to€be€no€reason€to€permit€theÏChancery€Court€to€dismiss,€rather€than€transfer,€an€otherwise€valid€claim€that€it€couldÏhave€entertained,€if€objection€had€not€been€made€to€its€jurisdiction.€€Thus€the€trialÏcourt€erred€in€dismissing€this€case€on€jurisdictional€grounds.€ÌÌà@  )êàò òV.€€Waiveró óˆÐ °1-0 ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àThe€State€also€argues€that€Mr.€Wellington€has€waived€his€right€to€haveÏhis€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€claim€considered€by€a€trial€court,€because€of€a€claim€he€filed€withÏâ âthe€Claims€Commission€containing€the€same€facts.€€The€State€asserts€that€the€allegedÐ 09€48 Ðclaim€was€filed€on€February€5,€1998,€and€invokes€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€€9„8„307(b)Ïwhich€reads:Ìâ âÒ0 €ÒÒ„ÒÓÓà ˆ àClaims€against€the€state€filed€pursuant€to€subsectionÏ(a)€shall€operate€as€a€waiver€of€any€cause€of€action,€basedÏupon€the€same€act€or€omission,€which€the€claimant€hasÏagainst€any€state€officer€or€employee.€€The€waiver€is€void€ifÏthe€commission€determines€that€the€act€or€omission€was€notÏwithin€the€scope€of€the€officerððs€or€employeeððs€office€orÏemployment.€€€ÌÒ€0 ÒÒ„ÒÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àHowever,€there€is€nothing€in€the€record€to€suggest€that€this€argumentÏwas€raised€below,€or€even€that€the€alleged€claim€was€ever€filed.€€Instead,€the€StateÏrefers€us€to€a€certified€copy€of€a€ð ðNotice€of€Appeal€from€Denial€of€Claim€by€the€DivisionÏof€Claims€Administrationðð€which€it€has€appended€to€its€brief.€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àœThe€jurisdiction€of€this€court€is€appellate€only.€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€16„4„¼108.€€Thus,€while€any€question€of€law€may€be€brought€up€for€review,€òòseeóó€Rule€13(a),Ð 0€ ÐTenn.€R.€App.€Proc.ññ›ññ,€we€may€not€decide€questions€that€were€not€brought€up€in€theÏcourt€below.€€Further,€we€are€not€required€to€consider€facts€that€were€not€presentedÏto€the€trial€court.€€ñ ñRñ ñule€13(c),€Tenn.€R.€App.€Proc.€€Thus,€we€would€not€feel€compelledÏto€address€the€argument€of€waiver,€were€it€not€for€the€likelihood€that€the€defendantsÏwould€assert€it€in€tñ ñññ€ñññ ñhe€trial€court€upon€remand.›ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€are€not€aware€of€any€case€in€which€the€Tennessee€Supreme€CourtÏhas€determined€that€the€filing€of€a€claim€in€the€Claims€Commission€required€theÏdismissal€of€a€earlier„filed€trial€court€complaint€brought€under€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€forÏintentional€deprivation€of€constitutional€rights.€€However€the€appellee€has€directed€ourÏattention€to€a€case€decided€by€the€United€States€Court€of€Appeals,€in€which€theÏFederal€Appeals€Court€made€such€a€determination,€òòWhite€ex€rel€œSwafford›€v.€œGerbitz›óó,Ð °1-0 Ð860€F.2d€661€(œ6th›€Circuit.€1988)€(Jones,€J.€dissenting).ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€note€that€in€the€òòœSwafford›óó€case,€the€Sixth€Circuit€took€great€pains€toÐ P7 26 Ðensure€that€its€decision€did€not€result€in€the€plaintiff€irrevocably€losing€his€federalÏrights.€€The€Appeals€Court€instructed€the€U.S.€District€Court€to€include€language€in€itsÐ ;`6: Ðorder€of€dismissal€to€the€effect€that€if€the€waiver€provision€was€not€invoked€due€to€theÏdefendantððs€act€being€deemed€to€be€outside€the€scope€of€his€employment,€the€plaintiffÏwas€entitled€to€have€his€claim€reinstated€in€the€federal€district€court,€with€the€StatuteÏof€Limitations€on€the€federal€cause€of€action€being€tolled€in€the€interim.€€Despite€thisÏsafeguard,€Judge€Jones,€the€dissenting€judge,€declared€himself€to€be€disturbed€by€theÏmajorityððs€opinion,€because€the€Courtððs€decision€ð ðexalts€a€state€waiver€provision€aboveÏa€plaintiffððs€right€to€seek€relief€for€unconstitutional€acts.ðð€€ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àA€further€indication€of€the€œññcññññCññourtððs›€discomfort€with€such€a€result€may€beÏfound€in€the€earlier€case€of€òòœLeaman›€v.€Ohio€Dept.€Of€Mental€Retardationóó,€825€F.2dÐ à Ð946€(œ6th›€Circuit€1987).€€The€Court€sat€œen›€œbanc›€to€hear€that€case,€which€involved€aÏwaiver€provision€in€Ohio€law€similar€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(b).€€While€a€majorityÏof€the€14€judges€(one€judge€recused€himself)€agreed€that€the€waiver€was€effective€toÏrequire€dismissal€of€the€plaintiffððs€42€U.S.C.€ðð€1983€claim,€the€case€also€generated€sixÏseparate€dissenting€opinions€based€on€objections€similar€to€the€one€quoted€above.ÌÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€share€the€concern€of€the€Sixth€Circuit€for€the€protection€ofÏconstitutional€rights.€€œHoweverññ€ññññ,€the€courts€of€this€stateññññweññ›€are€not€bound€by€the€decisionÏin€the€òòœSwafford›óó€case,€and€we€do€not€believe€that€Mr.€Wellington€has€waived€hisÐ p&À!$ Ðconstitutional€claims.€€The€Legislature€enacted€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€9„8„307(b)€to€avoidÏthe€danger€of€inconsistent€or€œduplicative›€judgments€in€different€tribunals,€not€to€createÏa€trap€to€hinder€or€delay€the€diligent€pro€œse›€plaintiff.€€In€the€present€case,€it€is€apparentÏto€us€that€the€circuit€court€is€the€most€appropriate€forum€for€dealing€with€the€allegedÏassault€by€the€five€guards.€€The€allegedly€negligent€conduct€by€other€DepartmentalÏemployees,€all€of€which€occurred€either€before€and€after€the€alleged€assault,€is€betterÏaddressed€by€the€Claims€Commission.€€à  àÐ 3à.2 ÐÌœÌÌÐ ;`6: Лà@oo-êàò òVI.ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà Ø àà 0 àWe€affirm€the€trial€courtððs€dismissal€of€the€plaintiffððs€claims€againstÏdefendants€Hall€and€Bell,€and€reverse€the€dismissal€against€defendants€œLedford›,ÏElam,€Merchant,€Brooks€and€Scott.€€Remand€this€cause€to€the€Chancery€Court€ofÏDavidson€County€with€instructions€to€transfer€it€to€the€Circuit€Court.€€Tax€one„third€ofÏthe€costs€on€appeal€to€Appellant€Wellington,€and€two„thirds€to€appellees€œLedford›,ÏElam,€Merchant,€Brooks€and€Scott.€Ì€ÌÌÓÓà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àà è àà @ àà ˜ àà ð àà H! àà  # à¼à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à______________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.ÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌÌ_____________________________ÌWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌÐ   +p&) ÐÑ  ÑÔ€¼Ç€¼XXYkÔò òà@êê.êàœññIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@™™(êàAT€œNASHVILLEˆÌÌññÌñññ ñÌñ ñÌññó óññÔ‡XYkX¼¼Ç€ÔRUSSELL€WELLINGTON,à 8 àà  à)Ð 4 „ Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)Ìà Ø àPlaintiff/Appellant,à à àà 8 àà  à)à è àAppeal€No.Ô#†¼Ç€¼XXYk~r#ÔÔ‡XYkX¼¼Ç€ÔÐ  d Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è à01„A„01„9807„CH„00363Ô#†¼Ç€¼XXYk¦s#ÔÔ‡XYkX¼¼Ç€ÔÐ T  ÐVS.à Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ ôD  Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àDavidson€ChanceryÔ#†¼Ç€¼XXYkgt#ÔÔ‡XYkX¼¼Ç€ÔÐ ä4  ÐROBERT€S.€LEDFORD,€DAVID€ELAM,à  à)à è àNo.€97„4154„IIIÔ#†¼Ç€¼XXYk‘u#ÔÔ‡XYkX¼¼Ç€Ôà ð àà H! àÐ Ô$  ÐRICHARD€MERCHANT,€JASONà 8 àà  à)à è àÐ Ä  ÐBROOKS,€CPL.€SCOTT,€SANDRAà  à)à è àAffirmed€in€Part;Ð ´ ÐHALL,€WARDEN€RICKY€J.€BELL,à  à)à è àReversed€in€Part;Ð ¤ô Ðà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àà  à)à è àand€RemandedÐ ”ä Ðà Ø àDefendants/Appellees.à 8 àà  à)Ð „Ô ÐÔ#†¼Ç€¼XXYk.v#ÔÔ€XYkX¼¼Ç€Ô›ÌÔ€¼Ç€¼XXYkÔò òòòà@uu'êàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ d´ ÐÌÓÓÔ€XYkX¼¼Ç€Ôà Ø àà 0 àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€theÐ à ÐœChancery€Court›€of€œDavidson€County,›€œand€briefs›€œof€counsel;€upon›€considerationÏwhereof,€this€Court€is€of€the€opinion€œthe€dismissal€of€appellees€Hall€and€Bell€shouldÏbe€affirmed€and€the€dismissal€of€appellees€Ledford,€Elam,€Merchant,€Brooks€and€ScottÏshould€be€reversed.Ìà Ø à›à 0 àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€of€the€Court€filed€herein,€it€is,€therefore,Ïordered€and€decreed€by€this€Court€that€the€decree€œis€affirmed€in€part€and€reversed€inÏpart.›€€The€cause€is€remanded€to€the€œChancery€Court›€of€œDavidson€County›€for€œfurtherÏproceedings›€and€for€the€collection€of€the€costs€accrued€below.Ìà Ø àà 0 àCosts€of€this€appeal€are€taxed€œone„third€against›€œappellant€RussellÏWellington,€and€two„thirds€against€appellees€Ledford,€Elam,€Merchant,€Brooks€andÏScott,›€for€which€execution€may€issue€if€necessary.ÌÓÓœññÌññ›Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€PRESIDING€JUDGE,€M.S.›ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGE›ÌÌÌà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àœ_____________________________________Ìà Ø àà 0 àà ˆ àà à àà 8 àWILLIAM€B.€CAIN,€JUDGEÌÌññ›