WPC6 uaY#ITll]yL҃=0cmZ_Trw$]-3}=4i92 -'Ne(bؔxUVD⩋:Пm gӉT{QtPq^i)ӊLLb%>vU3Ƚ>QGZO!qA V kgqUW7p4TR0ցg^dF8$E(Y{/Xl(X`RE%ߝ0.^r||qJm7?zPL^kuX W#y؈R.(k,vYR#o>NLc 1A_n!c流!$SO6VdkJf#i(&G3tN`X~+b]єnj5pnBN-eoO62Ӆ ᯼ec]M[oq'-*n&E@'Wd#!xUN % 0U< w 4  N ^   m   A* U:k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k 0D 0 D5 B AQ \ 0" 0DHP LaserJet 8000 DN PS0(hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(7$  7XXdXXd7  Xd|XXX-Bu Z$Arrus BT RomantpO'3|x]~j'L U 7 b"Q"  X-XXX  _XXXX-J1XX   Ad FILEDXXJ1  November10,1999CecilCrowson,Jr.AppellateCourtClerkdA ,cAZ"Arial Regular(#$  0  (3"Q$ 7!  8w XXdd8  X-XXX  \\\\)!dxdx dabZc[C<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3"Q$ 7!  8w XXdd8  X-XXX  ($$   1  7!  8w XXdd8  X-XXX  _TR[A' Legal3'A' Legal3'Tx`[B2.jzY`  `@E ` 8ttxPA x_@ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @(ATNASHVILLE `  ______________________________________________ LESLEYBUFORD,    ` PetitionerAppellant, `     h      p DavidsonChanceryNo.98616IIVs. `     h      p C.A.No.M199800157COAR3CV    TENNESSEEDEPARTMENT   OFCORRECTION,ETAL,     ` RespondentsAppellees.____________________________________________________________________________@  FROMTHEDAVIDSONCOUNTYCHANCERYCOURT@ THEHONORABLEELLENHOBBSLYLE,CHANCELLOR@$LesleyBuford,ProSe@#TomAndersonofJackson@II(ForAppellees@ PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter@??MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral@ElenaJ.Xoinis,AssistantAttorneyGeneral@ ForAppellee,TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection@$ AFFIRMEDANDREMANDED  '## @'Opinionfiled: `  `     h      p   W.FRANKCRAWFORD, 2..  `     h      p   PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGEDAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE  ;77 Ї ` Thiscaseinvolvesapetitionforwritofcertiorarifiledbyastateprisoner.The  prisonerchallengesadisciplinaryproceedingbroughtagainsthim.Thetrialcourt   dismissedthesuitforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.We   affirm.   @PP, FACTS  p 0   T$T$  ` Appellant,Lesley_Buford_,isaninmateinthecustodyoftheTennessee   DepartmentofCorrection.OnDecember1,1997,theappellantappearedbeforethe  disciplinaryboardattheSouthCentralCorrectionalFacilityinClifton,Tennessee,  onthechargeofcreatingadisturbanceattheprisonontheeveningofNovember18,  1997.Thedisciplinaryboardfound_Buford_ԀguiltyofaClassBinfractionand  sentencedhimtofifteendaysinpunitivesegregation,finedhimfourdollarsand  imposedafourmonthpackagerestriction.   ` TheappellantappealedthedisciplinaryboardsdecisiontoWardenKevin  Myers,whoaffirmedthedecisionandpunishment._Buford_Ԁthenappealedtothe ! DepartmentofCorrectionsAssistantCommissionerJimRose,whoalsoaffirmedthe # conviction.Subsequently,CorrectionCommissioner,_Donal_ԀCampbell,affirmedthe %!! convictiononJanuary20,1998. '##  ` OnFebruary27,1998,_Buford_ԀfiledintheChanceryCourtforDavidson )%% County,Tennessee,tenpetitionsforwritsofcertiorariagainstthefollowing +'' defendants:KevinMeyers,RaleighBrewer,JimRose,_Donal_ԀCampbell,Tina -)) _Schachle_,IraCampbell,DaleBrewer,RoscoeClayton,FredAlexander,andDavid /++ _Hensley_.Thetrialcourtfoundthatthecomplaintsinvolvedcommonquestionsof 1-- lawandfactandaroseoutofacommonoccurrence.Specifically,inhispetitionsfor 3// writsofcertiorari,_Buford_ԀcontendedthattheDisciplinaryBoard( Board)wasan 511 illegaltribunalbecauseSouthCentralCorrectionalFacility,aprivateprisonoperated 733 byCorrectionsCorporationofAmerica,waswithoutauthoritytotakedisciplinary 955 actionagainstinmates.Additionally,_Buford_ԀallegedthattheBoardviolatedhis  rightstodueprocess.ThetrialcourtenteredanorderonMarch12,1998,pursuant  toRule42,_Tenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁconsolidatingthetenpetitions.   ` OnJuly27,1998,theTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionfiledaRule   12.02(6)_Tenn.R.Civ.P._Ԁmotiontodismissthecomplaintforfailuretostateaclaim   uponwhichreliefcanbegranted.ByorderenteredSeptember4,1998,thetrial   courtdismissed_Buford_spetitions._Buford_Ԁtimelyfiledamotiontoalteroramend   thejudgmentonSeptember21,1998,whichthetrialcourtdeniedbyorderentered  November2,1998.TheappellanttimelyfiledanoticeofappealonNovember25,  1998,andpresentsfourissuesforreviewasstatedinhisbrief:  8 ` 8 ` !` !1.DidtheTrialCourterrindeterminingthatPetitioner  hadnotstatedaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbe  granted?   8 ` 8 ` !` !2.DidtheTrialCourterrindeterminingthatPetitioner  wasnotentitledtodueprocessprotections?   8 ` 8 ` !` !3.DidtheTrialCourterrindeterminingthatthe  TennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionistheonlyandsole   respondenttoaPetitionforWritofCertiorari?!   8 ` 8 ` !` !4.DidtheTrialCourterrindenyingtheMotionto # AmendPetitionaftertheMotiontoAmendpetitionhad $  beenpreviouslygranted?%!!    ` _Buford_Ԁassertsthatthetrialcourterredindismissinghispetitionsforwritsof '## certioraribydeterminingthathewasnotentitledtodueprocessprotections,in )%% determiningthattheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionistheonlyproper +'' respondenttoapetitionforwritofcertiorari,andbydenyinghismotiontoamend -)) thepetition. /++  ` Wefirstturnourattentiontotheproperpartytothisproceeding.Thetrial 1-- courtfound,andweaffirm,thattheonlyproperpartytothisproceedingisthe 3// TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection._T.C.A._Ԁ279104(1980)provides: 511 8 ` 8 ` !` !Thepetitionshallbeaddressedtothepresiding 733 chancellorandshallnameasdefendantstheparticular 844 boardorcommissionandsuchotherpartiesofrecord,if 955 such,aswereinvolvedinthehearingbeforetheboardor  commission,andwhodonotjoinaspetitioners.    ` Inthiscase,theonlypartyofrecordwasthedepartment,and,thus,theonly  properdefendantwastheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Thetrialcourt   properlydismissedthecomplaintagainsttheindividualdefendantsbecausetheyare   notthecorrectpartiestobesued.    ` _Buford_Ԁnextassertsthataprivateprisonsdisciplinaryboardhasnoauthority   todisciplineprisoners.Wedonotdisagreewiththisassertion.Tennesseelawclearly   prohibitsthedelegationofpowertodisciplineprisonerstoaprivateprison  contractor._T.C.A._Ԁ4124110(5)(1986)providesinpertinentpart:  8 ` 8 ` !` !Nocontractforcorrectionalservicesshallauthorize,allow  orimplyadelegationoftheauthorityorresponsibilityof  thecommissionertoaprisoncontractorforanyofthe  following:    `  .......  8 ` 8 ` !` !(5)Granting,denyingorrevokingsentencecredits;  placinganinmateunderlessrestrictivecustodyormore  restrictivecustody;_ortakinganydisciplinaryactions.    ` In Mandelav.Campbelletal. ,978S.W.2d531(Tenn.1998),theSupreme   Courtaddressedtheissueofwhetherprivatecontractoremployeeswereauthorized " underlawtositondisciplinaryboards.Itisnoteworthythatthe Mandela casearose $  outoftheSouthCentralCorrectionalFacility,thesameprisonatissueintheinstant &"" case.TheSupremeCourtfoundthattheUniformDisciplinaryProceduresmandate ($$ theappointmentofaliaisonbetweentheDepartmentofCorrectionandtheprivate *&& contractor. Id. at532.UnderPolicyNo.9502.01(IV)(A),theCommissioners ,(( designeeisaDepartmentofCorrectionemployeewhois authorizedbythe . ** Commissionertoserveastheapprovingauthorityforspecifiedactionsatprivately 0 ,, contractedprisons.Policy9502.01(IV)(A)provides: 2 ..  ` 8 Acommissionersdesigneeshall:4 00   8 ` 8 ` !` !ObserveallClassAandBdisciplinaryhearings,and 6 22 approveormodifyallrecommendationsofthe 7 33 disciplinaryboardatthetimeofthehearing...8 44    9 55 Accordingly,thedisciplinaryboardconductshearings,reviewstheevidenceand  makesrecommendationstotheDepartmentofCorrectionliaisonwhomustapprove  ormodifytheboardsrecommendation.Asnotedin Mandela ,  8 ` 8 ` !` !Thefinalapprovalofthedisciplinaryrecommendation   restedsolelywiththe_TDOC_Ԁcommissionersdesignee.   Theboardsrecommendationastopunishmentwas   merelyarecommendation,andactualdisciplinewasnot    imposeduntilthe_TDOC_Ԁrepresentativereviewedthecase   andapprovedtheboardsrecommendation.Accordingly,   the_TDOC_Ԁretainedtheauthoritytopunishtheprisoners   and,infact,imposedthepunishmentsinthecasesnow   beforeus.    `   Id. at533.   ` ThetrialcourtfoundthatRoscoeClayton,anemployeeoftheTennessee  DepartmentofCorrectionandtheCommissionersdesignee,waspresentatthe  disciplinaryhearingandapprovedtheboardsrecommendation.Inthepresentcase,  notonlydidtheDepartmentofCorrectionrepresentativereviewthecaseand  approvetheboardsrecommendation,but,also,theCommissionerreviewedthe  findingsandrecommendationsandapprovedthepunishment. x Ininitiatingthis   causeofactioninthetrialcourt,_Buford_Ԁfilednumerouspetitionsforwritsof " certiorari.InTennessee,twotypesofcertiorariexist._T.C.A._Ԁ278101providesthe $  commonlawwritofcertiorari,and_T.C.A._Ԁ278102providesthestatutorywritof &"" certiorari. _Fairhaven_ԀCorp.v.Tenn.HealthFacilitiesComm. ,566S.W.2d885,886 ($$ (Tenn.App.1976). * &&  ` Underthecommonlawwrit,theintrinsiccorrectnessofthedecisionofthe , (( lowertribunalisnotsubjecttojudicialreview. Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReview . ** Bd. ,879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.App.1994).Underthecommonlawwrit,the 0,, scopeofreviewisgenerallylimitedtoadeterminationofwhethertheadministrative 2.. bodyactedwithinitsjurisdictionoractedarbitrarily,capriciously,orillegally. 400  CoopervWilliamsonCountyBd.ofEduc. ,746S.W.2d176,179(Tenn.1987).In 622  Cooper ,theCourtsaid: 844 8 ` 8 ` !` !Thescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwritdoesnot  ordinarilyextendtoaredeterminationofthefactsfound  bytheadministrativebody.Asweobservedin Davison  v.Carr, [659S.W.2d361(Tenn.1983)]:   8 ` 8 ` !` !8  Generally,undercommonlawcertiorari,the   scopeofreviewislimitedtotherecordto   determineasaquestionoflawwhether   thereisanymaterialevidencetosupportthe   agencysfindings.However,newevidence    isadmissibleontheissueofwhetherthe   administrativebodyexceededits   jurisdictionoractedillegally,capriciouslyor   arbitrarily. LL  `   Id. at363.  746S.W.2dat179.   ` _Buford_Ԁassertsthatthetrialcourterredindismissinghispetitionfora  statutorywritofcertioraripursuantto_T.C.A._Ԁ278102(1981),whichprovides  thatthestatutorywritofcertiorariisavailableinfiveinstances: (1)Onsuggestion  ofdiminution;(2)Wherenoappealisgiven;(3)Asasubstituteforappeal;(4)  Insteadof_audita_Ԁ_querela_;or(5)Insteadofwritoferror.Theonlyoneofthefive  possiblecircumstancesunderwhichthestatutorywritwouldbearguablyavailable ! isthesecondsituation, wherenoappealisgiven.Ifthestatutorywritlies,review # underthewritisdenovoandmaybeusedtocorrecterrorsoffactandlawcommitted %!! bytheinferiortribunal. Boycev.Williams ,389S.W.2d272,276(Tenn.1965). '## Moreover,thereviewingcourtmayconductatrialonthemerits. Robertsv.Brown , ) %% 310S.W.2d197,206208(Tenn.App.1958). +''  ` Inanexcellentandoftencitedarticle,JudgeBen_Cantrell_,nowofthisCourt, -)) summarizedthecaselawanddescribedtherequirementsthatmustbemetfor /++ issuanceofastatutorywritofcertiorari: 1-- 8 ` 8 ` !` !Insummary,intheabsenceofaspecificstatuteexpressly 3// grantingthewrit,thestatutorywritofcertiorariis 400 availableonlyifthefollowingrequirementsaremet:(1) 511 theorderoftheadministrativebodyofwhichreviewis 622 soughtisoneforwhichnojudicialreviewisprovided;(2) 733 thefunctionperformedbythelowertribunalisessentially 844 judicialinnature;(3)theorderforwhichreviewissought 955 finallydeterminestherightsofthepetitioner._Cantrell_,  ReviewofAdministrativeDecisionsbyWritofCertiorariin  Tennessee,4Mem.St._U.L._ԀRev.19,2728(1973).    ` Thereisasplitofauthorityamongtheappellatecourtsinthisstateregarding  whetherthefunctionsofaprisonsdisciplinaryboardare essentiallyjudicialin   nature.Intwopreviousunreporteddecisions,theWesternSectionofthisCourt   determinedthatthedisciplinaryboardsactionwasessentiallyjudicialinnature.    Cobbv.Vinsonetal. ,No.02A019707CV00144(Tenn.App.April1,1998);    Williamsv.Tenn.Dept.ofCorrection ,No.02A019503CV00046(Tenn.App.Oct.  2,1995).However,in Rayv.State ,577S.W.2d681,682(Tenn._Crim_.App.1978)  cert.denied(1979),theCourtofCriminalAppeals,relyingupon Stateexrel.Turner   v.Gore ,175S.W.2d317(Tenn.1943),heldthatproceedingsbeforeprison  disciplinaryboardsareadministrativeinnatureandarenotjudicialproceedings.  Moreover,theMiddleSectionofthisCourtstatedin Friedmanv.Bassetal. ,No.  01A019707CH00331(Tenn.App.Nov.19,1997), [_T]he_Ԁonlyvehicleforseeking  judicialreviewofaprisondisciplinaryproceedingsisapetitionforcommonlawwrit   ofcertiorari. Id. at*1.(citing Bishopv._Conley_ ,894S.W.2d294,196(Tenn. " _Crim_.App.1994); _Snodgrass_Ԁv._Noles_ ,No.02C019403CC00037(Tenn._Crim_. $  App.July8,1994)). Seealso , _Blackmon_Ԁv.Campbelletal. ,No.02A019807CH &"" 00361(Tenn.App.Feb.23,1999). ("$$  ` Uponfurtherconsideration,theWesternSectionofthisCourtdepartsfrom *"&& ourholdingsin Williams and Cobb ,anddeclares,alongwiththeothercourts,that ,"(( thefunctionsofprisondisciplinaryboardsareadministrativeandnotjudicialin .&** nature.Therefore,thestatutorywritofcertiorari,_T.C.A._Ԁ278102,isnotavailable 0&,, forreviewofproceedingstakenbyaprisondisciplinaryboard.Accordingly,we 2&.. concludethatthetrialcourtdidnoterrindenyingthepetitionforwritofstatutory 4&00 certiorari. 6&22  ` Wenowconsiderwhetherthetrialcourterredindismissingtheappellants 8&44 petitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari.Asnotedabove,thescopeofreview  underthecommonlawwritofcertiorariisverynarrow.In Powellv.Parole  EligibilityReviewBd. ,879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.App.1994),thisCourtstated:  8 ` 8 ` !` !  Thescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwrit,   however,isverynarrow.Itcoversonlyaninquiryinto   whethertheBoardhasexceededitsjurisdictionoris   actingillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily._Conclusory_    termssuchas arbitraryandcapriciouswillnotentitlea   petitionertothewrit.Attheriskofoversimplification,   onemaysaythatitisnotthecorrectnessofthedecision   thatissubjecttojudicialreview,butthemannerinwhich   thedecisionisreached.Iftheagencyorboardhas  reacheditsdecisioninaconstitutionalorlawfulmanner,  thenthedecisionwouldnotbesubjecttojudicialreview.    `   Id. at873(citationsomitted).     ` _Buford_Ԁassertsthatthedisciplinaryboardproceedingsviolatedhisprocedural   dueprocessrights.Inordertoprevailwiththeseclaims,hemustdemonstratethat   theconductofprisonofficialshasimposed atypicalandsignificanthardshipsonthe   inmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentofprisonlife. _Sandin_Ԁv.Conner ,515   U.S.472,484,115S.Ct.2293,2300,132_L.Ed_.2d418(1995).Prisondisciplinary   proceedingsarewithintheexpectedparametersofaprisonsentenceandarean " ordinarypartofprisonlife. _Sandin_Ԁv.Conner ,515U.S.at485,115,S.Ct.at2301. $   Seealso , _Friedmann_ԀvBassetal. ,No.01A019707CH00331. &""  ` Wefindnothingarbitraryorimproperintheconductof_Buford_sdisciplinary ($$ hearingattheSouthCentralCorrectionalFacility._Buford_Ԁreceivedadequatenotice *&& oftheproceedingsagainsthim,hetestifiedonhisownbehalfatthedisciplinary ,(( hearing,andhewaivedhisrighttocallwitnesses.Moreover,thedisciplinaryboard .** providedastatementofitsfindings,andthepunishmentmetedoutfifteendays 0,, punitivesegregation,afourdollarfine,andafourmonthpackagerestrictionisnot 2.. theatypicalandsignificanthardshipcontemplatedby _Sandin_ .Accordingly,we 400 affirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontodismiss_Buford_spetition. 622  ` Finally,_Buford_Ԁcomplainsthatthetrialcourterredbydenyinghispetitionto 844 amendthecomplainttonameDavid_Hensley_Ԁasadefendant._Buford_Ԁfiledamotion  toamendthepetitiononMay19,1998,whichthetrialcourtgrantedbyorder  enteredJuly29,1998.However,inthefinalorderenteredSeptember8,1998,the  trialcourtdenied_Buford_smotiontoamend,findingcorrectlythattheonlyproper   partydefendantistheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.    ` Accordingly,theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Thecaseisremandedto   thetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasarenecessary.Costsofappealare   assessedagainstappellant.   `     h      p _________________________________   `     h      p W.FRANKCRAWFORD,   `     h      p PRESIDINGJUDGE,_W.S._    CONCUR:  ____________________________________   ALANE._HIGHERS_,JUDGE    ____________________________________   DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE