WPCE i>5۠.kbWلBZFl]"U# e6Mv-=AIz-GIa{5J&_B&yf.%G@WO~HOR6K8}SmhȔ0Ǵ~]Y{bvxϜia^W%,a//?7o3!pՏB3tzDq^g4TFu˙;'亭gs"#tXQUflo3E1ͻnj"4e\*gV[+6 gPE=Pof"#\bLH@K@#̟فhÞ@@w, v'HPxsL;a`jiw)78?5Ӷ4%o m*5Հ!ݥ eӶe"dGsN,sh# %q ^ w 0 U.N wY 4] zq    m  e + 0D}N^E2!!S 0U[ 0 0 0 0b 0B 0 0 0 0C 0 0 0! 0c" 01# 0# 0$ 0% 0@I& 0&b]' 0e' 06( 0) 0) 0* 0\+ 0, 00, 0< - 0G- 0>. 0vC. 0`. 0`/ 0`y/ 0`/ 0`90 080 00 021 01 0:2 0Y 3 0_d3 0 3 0j4 076 B*7 D/7 08 D/9 09 06: 0: 0:; 0 < 0^< 0<V=U6= B=U>= 0#> D3> D-> 0K'?U*r? AS?? 0@ 0DYA AAHB GDGDGDGD 04gEHP LaserJet 4 Plus,,,,,,0(o]-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular],.bkɡ C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU v R$      1    _ThefactsofthiscaseandtheargumentsarederivedprimarilyfromthePetitionersnumerousdocumentsand  motionsfiledwiththevariouscourts.RespondentscursorybriefprovidedonlyminimalassistancetotheCourt.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      3    _DonalCampbellistheCommissioneroftheTDOC,JamesA.DukesistheWardenoftheWTSP,andLisa  A.ReynoldsisaCorrectionalOfficerattheWTSPwhoactedastheDisciplinaryBoardChairpersonduringHalls x disciplinaryhearing.  R$      5    _ See Tenn.CodeAnn.4035501(l)(2):  8  WcThedepartmentofcorrectionshallnotcertifyaninmateforaparolegranthearing,otherthananinitial x granthearing,if,atthetimethedepartmentofcorrectionwouldotherwisehavecertifiedtheinmate <  aseligible,theinmateisclassifiedasmaximumcustody.Suchdecertificationshallcontinueforthe  durationofsuchclassification,andforaperiodoftwo(2)yearsthereafter#Wc#.t   Ѐ Id. PursuanttoTDOCPolicy#404.10VI(A)(4) ,inmatesplacedinadministrativesegregationareautomatically H classifiedasmaximumcustody. ( R$      6    _ ...[Administrativesegregation]isforinmateswho,becauseofconditionssurroundingtheirincarceration,  arebelievedtoposeseriousriskstothesecurityandgoodorderoftheinstitutionortothesafetyofotherinmates,staff, x orthecommunityandthereforerequirecustodyandsecurityatthehighestlevel....TDOCPolicy# @ 404.10(VI)(A)(1). *+ (_2623  ..*G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  - -(DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      (&H2  (&H3  (&H4 XXX (&H5  (&H6  20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7K(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7&  d dJ)1dxd<:zTop of For7M(X7  ?\%2A`Arial?  SW\  `&Times New RomanS7Z(X7J)2dxd0KS.SampleKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKU<6X9`(Courier NewKSW\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable(|G2$ !.8dd8         0  : 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  <6X9`(Courier New d\  `&Times New Roman(|3+$ !.8dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  %2A`Arial^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3+$ !.8dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK  R$      2    _ SeealsoLittlesv.Campbell ,No.W200200265COAR3CV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS415,at*1314(Tenn.  Ct.App.June4,2002)  ,inwhich_TDOC_ԀinmateLarry_Littles_Ԁwasapparentlyfoundguiltyofparticipatinginthesame x incident,withsimilarresult.  R$      4    _HallsresponsetothemotiontodismissincludedamotionbeforethisCourtseekingawritofmandamus.  Themotionwasdenied.&c$""0 !.8dd8     _  8SXXdd8  @ 7INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#7 #Ԉ ,   ӀAssignedOnBriefApril22,2002 X XSX  #XXS #ROBERTHALL  ` v. ( x _DONAL_ԀCAMPBELL,JAMESA.DUKES,andLISAA.REYNOLDSXSX  @  ,@Q Q  AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforLauderdaleCounty H  @3 3 No.11,755MarthaB._Brasfield_,Chancellor 8  @*AV) ` dE<` A߈ X  @ No.W200200301_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober29,_2002_Ԉ W  AV) ` dE<` A 7  Thisisawritofcertioraricasebroughtbyaprisoner.Theplaintiff,aninmateoftheTennessee 6 DepartmentofCorrection,wasfoundguiltybytheprisondisciplinaryboardofcommittingthe & offenseofConspiracytoViolateStateLaw.Hewassentencedtopunitivesegregation,and  thereafterplacedinadministrativesegregation.Theplaintiffprisonerpetitionedforawritof  certiorari.Thetrialcourtgrantedthedefendantsmotiontodismiss,findingthatthefactsfailedto  showthatthedisciplinaryboardexceededitsjurisdiction,oractedillegally,arbitrarily,or  fraudulently.Weaffirm.     Tenn.R.App.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  f l#XS#XSX.HollyK._Lillard_,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichW.FrankCrawford,_P.J._,_W.S._, F andAlanE._Highers_,J.,joined. 6 RobertHall,Nashville,Tennessee,appellant,prose. !f Arthur_Crownover_ԀII,Nashville,forappellees,_Donal_ԀCampbell,JamesA.Dukes,andLisaA. "F! Reynolds. #6"    OPINION #XXS #XSX %!$     PetitionerAppellantRobertHall( Hall)isaninmateattheWestTennesseeState '"& Penitentiary( _WTSP_).#XXS #XSX  #  1      ׀OnApril19,2000,Hallwasplacedininvoluntaryadministrative (#' segregationinresponsetoanaltercationearlierthatdaybetweentwootherprisoners,Cunningham )$( and_Inman_.OnApril26,2000,HallwasservedwithaTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection v*%)B ( _TDOC_)DisciplinaryReportcharginghimwithConspiracytoViolateStateLaw.Thereport  allegedthatHallhiredCunninghamtocommittheassaultagainst_Inman_._b #  2      _Ԁ    Duringtheensuinginvestigation,neitherHallnorCunninghamwasinterviewed.OnMay  2,2000,theprisondisciplinaryboard( DisciplinaryBoardor _WTSP_ԀDisciplinaryBoard) p conductedahearing.Atthehearing,evidencewaspresentedregardingstatementsoftwo `  confidentialinformantswhoimplicatedHallintheassault.Halldeniedanyinvolvement,andinmate P  CunninghamgaveastatementdenyingthatHallwasinvolvedintheattack. @    Afterthehearing,thedisciplinaryboardfoundHallguiltyoftheallegation.Hewas  p  sentencedtothirtydaysinpunitivesegregation,andplacedininvoluntaryadministrativesegregation `  foranindeterminateamountoftime. P    Afterexhaustingallavailableappealswithintheprison,Hallfiledapetitionforwritof 0  certiorariintheChanceryCourtofLauderdaleCounty,namingasRespondents_Donal_ԀCampbell,   JamesA.Dukes,andLisaA.Reynolds( Appellees)#XXS #XSX. #  3      ׀Hallallegedthattheinvestigationwas  improper,thattherewasalackofevidencetosupporthisconviction,thathewasdeniedanimpartial  disciplinarytribunal,thathereceivedinadequateassistancefromhisinmateadvisor,andfinally,that  hewasunabletocontesthisplacementinadministrativesegregation.Hallsoughttohavehis  convictionoverturnedandhisrecordexpunged.Herequestedthathebereleasedfromsegregation,  thathis goodtimesentencecreditsberestored,andthathebereimbursedforlostwagesasaresult p ofhisplacementinsegregation. `   TheRespondentsthenfiledamotiontodismiss,arguing(1)that_TDOC_,whichwasnot @ namedinthepetition,wastheonlyproperrespondent;(2)thatthepetitionshouldbedismissed 0 becauseofincorrectvenue;(3)thatthecomplaintshouldbedismissedforfailuretocomplywiththe  p PrisonerLitigationReformActandsections4121801etseq.oftheTennesseeCodeAnnotated; ` (4)thatdecisionsofprisondisciplinaryboardsarenotsubjecttoreviewbystatutorywritof P certiorari;and(5)thatthepetitionforacommonlawwritofcertiorarishouldbedismissedbecause @ the_WTSP_ԀDisciplinaryBoarddidnotactunlawfullyorinviolationofHallsconstitutionalrights.c #  4      ׀ 0   Addressingthemotiontodismiss,thetrialcourtconcludedthat,since_TDOC_Ԁwastheonly ! properpartytobenamedasrespondent,andHalldidnotname_TDOC_Ԁasarespondentanddidnot "  seektoamendhispetitiontoname_TDOC_,themotiontodismissshouldbegrantedonthatbasis.  Thetrialcourtconcludedthatvenuewasproperanddeclinedtodismissonthatground.Thetrial  courtfoundthatHallhadnotcompliedwiththestatutoryrequirementsthathefileacompletelist  oflawsuitspreviouslyfiledandthathefileacopyoftheprisongrievancecommitteesfinaldecision.  Onthisbasis,thetrialcourtfoundthatthepetitionshouldbedismissedwithoutprejudice.Thetrial p courtalsoconcludedthatdecisionsofprisondisciplinaryboardsarenotsubjecttoreviewby `  statutorywritofcertiorari,anddismissedthatclaiminthepetition.RegardingHallsrequestfora P  commonlawwritofcertiorari,thetrialcourtfound: @   8   ` 6.TheRespondentsarguethatthecommonlawwritofcertiorariisnot  p  properbecausethedisciplinaryboardactedneitherunlawfullynordiditviolatethe `  PetitionersConstitutionalrights.P    8   ` Withregardtothegrantingofawritofcertiorari:0    8  8`   8 ` x` xItiswellsettledthatthescopeofreviewunderthe  commonlawwritofcertiorariisverynarrow.  Reviewunderthewritislimitedtowhetherthe   inferiorboardortribunal(1)hasexceededits  jurisdiction,or(2)hasactedillegally,arbitrarily,or  fraudulently._McCallen_Ԁv.CityofMemphis,786 p S.W.2d633,638(Tenn.1990);seealsoPowellv. ` ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,879S.W.2d871,873 P (Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Theintrinsiccorrectnessof @ thedecisionisnow[sic]_reviewable_Ԁunderthewrit. 0 Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,956S.W.2d478  p (Tenn.1997).AsstatedinPowell, itisnotthe ` correctnessofthedecisionthatissubjecttojudicial P review,butthemannerinwhichthedecisionis @ reached.Powell,879S.W.2dat873....0   8  8`   8 ` x` xItisnottheroleofthereviewingcourtundera ! commonlawwritofcertioraritoreweighthe "  evidence....#!      ` 8 8  Perryvs.ColdCreekCorrectional % # Facility , 2000Tenn.App.LEXIS519 p&!$ (Ct.App.2000).`'"% 8   ` ThePetitionerassertsthat(a)animproperinvestigationwasconductedby @)$' Corporal_Ottinger_,(b)therewasalackofsufficientevidencetosupportthe 0*%( conviction,(c)hewasdeniedanimpartialdisciplinarytribunal,and(d)therewasa  +p&) lackofadequateassistancebyaninmateadvisor.Items(a)and(b)dealwiththe ,`'* intrinsiccorrectnessofthedecisionofthetribunal.Itwasthedecisionofthe  disciplinaryboardtodetermineiftheinvestigationwasproperbaseduponthe  testimonyitheard.Ifthedisciplinaryboardhaddeterminedthattheinvestigation  wasimproperandinsufficient,itwouldhavefoundthePetitionernotguiltyofthe  charges.Item(b)(thelackofsufficientevidencetosupporttheconviction)deals p exclusivelywithwhetherthedecisionofthedisciplinaryboardwascorrect.Initem `  (c),thePetitionerconcludesthatthetribunalwasnotimpartialbecausehe,asa P  conspirator,receivedmoretimeininvoluntaryadministrativesegregationthandid @  theperpetratorofthefight.ThisistheonlysupportingevidencethatthePetitioner 0  givesforhisconclusionofitems(c).ThePetitionersreasoningisfaulty.Thefact  p  hatthePetitionerssentencewasmorelengthythantheperpetratorsisnoreasonto `  concludethatthedisciplinaryboardwasnotimpartial.Astoitem(d),thePetitioner P  supportshisstatementthathisinmateadvisorprovidedinadequateassistance @  because,afterthehearing,theinmateadvisorlostanaffidavit,hadthePetitionerfile 0  ablankdisciplinaryappeal(whichwasagainstproperandacceptedprocedures),and   didnotpresentproperissuesinthefirstappealtoCommissionerCampbell.The  Petitionermakesnostatementastowhatthelegaladvisordidordidnotdoduring  theactualhearingthatconstitutedinadequateassistance.Thefactthattheadvisordid  not,inthePetitionersopinion,perfecttheappealandpresenttheproperissueson  appealisnotanindicationthattheadvisorwasinadequateduringthehearingbefore  thedisciplinaryboard.p   Therefore,onthebasisthatHall failedtosetoutfactswhichshowthatthedisciplinaryboard P exceededitsjurisdictionoractedillegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently,thetrialcourtdismissed @ Hallspetitionforawritorcertiorari.Fromthisorder,Hallnowappeals. 0   Onappeal,HallarguesthatRespondentsaretheproperpartiestothisaction,thathe ` compliedwiththestatutoryrequirementsthathelistpreviouslawsuitsandfilethegrievance P committeesfinaldecision,thatthetrialcourtsrulingregardingthestatutorywritofcertiorariis @ irrelevant,andthatthedisciplinaryboardactedillegallyandarbitrarily.Hallcontendsthatthe 0 sanctionsleviedagainsthimtriggereddueprocessprotection,andthathisdueprocessrightswere   violatedbecausethedisciplinaryboardfailedtoconductanappropriateinvestigation,becauseit ! lackedsufficientevidencetoconvicthim,becausethetribunalwasnotimpartial,andfinally, "  becausehereceivedinadequateassistancefromhisinmateadvisor. #!   Amotiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefmaybegrantedteststhe % # legalsufficiencyoftheplaintiffsclaim,notthestrengthofthepetitionersproof. Cookv. p&!$ Spinnakersof_Rivergate_,Inc. ,878S.W.2d934,938(Tenn.1994). Thegrantofamotionto `'"% dismissmaybeaffirmedonlyiftheallegationsinthecomplaint,takenastrueandconstruedliberally P(#& infavoroftheplaintiff,failtostateaclaimunderwhichtheplaintiffwouldbeentitledtorelief. @)$'  Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo. ,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997).Therefore,whenreviewingatrial 0*%(  courtsgrantofmotiontodismiss,allfactualallegationsaretakenastrue,andthetrialcourts  +p&) conclusionsoflawarerevieweddenovoontherecordwithnopresumptionofcorrectness. Doev.  _Sundquist_ ,2S.W.3d919,922(Tenn.1999);Tenn.R.App.P.13(d).     WeaddressfirstHallsargumentthatthetrialcourterredingrantingthemotiontodismiss  onthebasisthathispetitionfailedtosetoutfactsshowingthatthedisciplinaryboardactedillegally, p arbitrarily,orfraudulently.Thecommonlawwritofcertiorariisanextraordinaryjudicialremedy `  andthescopeofreviewisverynarrow. Willisv.Tenn.Dept.ofCorr. ,No.M20001397_COA_ԄR3 P  CV, 2002Tenn.App.LEXIS389,at*45(Tenn.Ct.App.June5,2002); Powellv.Parole @  EligibilityReviewBd. ,879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.Ct.App.1994).Thus,thereviewingcourtmay 0  notinquireintotheintrinsiccorrectnessofthelowertribunal, Arnoldv.Tenn.Bd.ofParoles ,956  p  S.W.2d478,480(Tenn.1997),butrather,itiswellsettledthat#XXS3#XSXthereviewingcourtcanonlygrant `  thepetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariwhentheinferiortribunal,herethe_TDOC_ P  DisciplinaryBoard,exceededitsjurisdiction,oractedunlawfully,arbitrarily,orfraudulently. Willis , @  2002Tenn.App.LEXIS389,at*4; _McCallen_Ԁv.CityofMemphis ,786S.W.2d633,638(Tenn. 0  1990). Iftheagencyorboardhasreacheditsdecisioninaconstitutionalorlawfulmanner,then   thedecisionwouldnotbesubjectorjudicialreview. Powell ,879S.W.2dat873.Therefore,on  appeal,thisCourtshouldreviewthepetitiontodetermineifitsetsoutsufficientfactualallegations,  which,ifproven,wouldshowthatthe_WTSP_ԀDisciplinaryBoardexceededitsjurisdiction,oracted  unlawfully,fraudulently,orarbitrarily. Baxterv.Tenn.Dept.ofCorr. ,No.M20002447_COA_ԄR3  CV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS279,at*9(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.23,2002).Halldoesnotallegethat  thedisciplinaryboardactedfraudulentlyoroutsideitsjurisdiction,sowefocusonhisallegationthat p thedisciplinaryboardactedillegallyorarbitrarily. `   Hallassertsthatthemannerinwhichthedisciplinaryhearingwasconductedandhis @ placementinadministrativesegregationtriggeredconstitutionaldueprocessrightsthatwere 0 subsequentlyviolated.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthatinorderfordisciplinary  p sanctionstorisetothelevelofcreatingaprotectedlibertyinterest,theconfinement,byitself,must ` imposean atypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsof P prisonlife. _Sandin_Ԁv.Conner ,515U.S.472,484(1995).In _Sandin_ ,theprisonerwassanctioned @ byaprisondisciplinaryboardandsentencedtothirtydaysinpunitivesegregation.TheCourtfound 0 thatsuchsegregationwastypicalandwaswithintheexpectedparametersofprisonlife. Id. at486.   Similarly,here,thedisciplinaryboardfoundMr.Hallguiltyandsentencedhimtothirtydaysin ! punitivesegregation,followedbyplacementinadministrativesegregationforanindeterminate "  amountoftime. #!   Hallassertsthathiscaseisdistinguishablefrom _Sandin_ because,bystatute,Halls % # confinementinadministrativesegregationautomaticallyprohibitshimfrombeingcertifiedfor p&!$ paroleeligibilityduringhistimeinadministrativesegregation,andfortwoyearsthereafter. #  5      ׀Hall `'"% contendsthatthetwentymonthshehasspentinadministrativesegregation,whencombinedwith  theautomatictwoyeardelayinparoleeligibilitycertification,resultsinahardshipatypicalofthe  ordinaryincidentsofprisonlife.Administrativesegregationisanonpunitivetooldesignedtohelp  prisonofficialscontrolandmanagetheprison._TDOC_ԀPolicy#404.10(VI)(A)(1). #  6      ׀TheSixth  CircuitCourtofAppealshasstatedthat administrative_segregations_Ԁhaverepeatedlybeenheldnot p toinvolveanatypicalandsignificanthardshipimplicatingaprotectedlibertyinterestwithout `  regardtoduration, Jonesv.Baker ,155F.3d810,812(6thCir.1998),andthat after _Sandin_ ,[a P  prisonercannot]arguethatplacementinadministrativesegregationisanatypicalandsignificant @  hardship. _Mackey_Ԁv.Dyke ,111F.3d460,463(6thCir.1997); seealsoWoodruffv.Tenn.Dept. 0  ofCorr. ,No.M200100494_COA_ԄR3CV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS618,at*16(Tenn.Ct.App.  p  Aug.28,2002).RegardingtheimpactonHallseligibilityforparole,theUnitedStatesSupreme `  Courthasheldthat [_t]he_Ԁdecisiontoreleaseaprisonerrestsonamyriadofconsiderationsandthat P   thechancethatafindingofmisconductwillalterthebalance[inmakingthedecisiontoparolea @  prisoner]issimplytooattenuatedtoinvokeproceduralguaranteesoftheDueProcessClause. 0   _Sandin_ ,515U.S.at487; seealso_Meachum_Ԁv._Fano_ ,427U.S.#XXS@A#XSX215,229n.8(1976)(citation   omitted)( Thegrantingofparole Shasitselfnotyetbeendeemedafunctiontowhichdueprocess  requirementsareapplicable); _Luken_Ԁv.Scott ,71F.3d192,19394(5thCir.1995)( Anyofahost  ofadministrativeordisciplinarydecisionsmadebyprisonauthoritiesmightsomehowaffectthe  timingofaprisonersrelease,butsucheffectshaveneverbeenheldtoconferaconstitutionally  protectedlibertyinterestuponaprisonersuchthattheprisonauthoritiesmustcomplywiththe  Constitutionalrequirementsofdueprocess.).ThisCourthasheldexplicitlythatthe inabilityto p obtaincertificationforaparolehearingdoesnotconstitutealibertyinterestwhichrequiresdue ` processprotections. _Littles_Ԁv.Campbell ,No.W200200265_COA_ԄR3CV,2002Tenn.App. P LEXIS,at*13!14(Tenn.Ct.App.June5,2002)(citinge.g., Wrightv._Trammell_ ,810F.2d589, @ 591(6thCir.1987); seealso_Kaylor_Ԁv.Bradley ,912S.W.2d728,735(Tenn.Ct.App.1995)#XXSW#XSX( [_T]he_ 0 DueProcessClausesofthestateandfederalconstitutionsprotectonlygenuineclaimsinvolvingpre  p existingentitlements.Theydonotprotectunilateralexpectationsorabstractneedsordesires.).#XXS\#XSX `   Hallalsoindicatesthatthedisciplinaryboardsallegedfailuretofollowitsownpolicies S shouldbegroundsforrelief.Afailuretofollow_TDOC_Ԁpoliciesmaybeconsideredillegalonly C whentheBoardsactionsconstituteafailuretofollowthe essentialrequirementsofthelaw. See 3  _Ahkeen_Ԁv.Campbell ,No.M20002411_COA_ԄR3CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS815,at*15(Tenn. #!s Ct.App.Nov.2,2001). #XXS]^#XSX The essentialrequirementsofthelawarecomprisedofthoserights "c  establishedbythedueprocessclause. Id. at*2122.#XXS$a#XSXԀ Therefore, thedisciplinaryproceedingisnot  illegalwithinthemeaningof...thecommonlawwritofcertiorarisimplybecausethedisciplinary  boardfailedtocomplywithitsowninternaldisciplinarypolicies;thepetitionforawritofcertiorari  mustsufficientlyallegeaviolationofdueprocess. Baxterv.Tenn.Dept.ofCorr. ,No.M2000  02447_COA_ԄR3CV,2002Tenn.App.Lexis279,at*14(Tenn.Ct.App.Apr.23,2002).Since p Hallsconfinementinadministrativesegregationisnotatypicalofordinaryprisonlife,heis `  thereforeunabletoestablishthatthedisciplinaryproceedingstriggereddueprocessprotections. P  Consequently,thedisciplinaryboardsallegedfailuretofollowitsownpoliciesisnotsufficientto @  supportaclaimforrelief.#XXS b#XSX 0    Likewise,thepetitionsetsforthnofactsfromwhichitcouldreasonablybeconcludedthat s   thedisciplinaryboardactedarbitrarily,thatis,lackingarationalbasisornotbasedonreasoningor c  judgment. Willisv.Tenn.Dept.ofCorr. ,No.M20001397_COA_ԄR3CV,2002Tenn.App.LEXIS S  389,at*3839(Tenn.Ct.App.June5,2002). C    Consequently,becausethefactsfailtoshowthattheDisciplinaryBoardactedoutsideits   jurisdiction,orunlawfully,arbitrarily,orfraudulently,thetrialcourtproperlydismissedHalls v  claim.Thisdetermination_pretermits_Ԁallotherissuesraisedonappeal. f   Thedecisionofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsaretaxedtotheappellant,RobertHall#XXS=f#XSX,for  whichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.   S   `     h     ___________________________________ b    `     h     HOLLYK._LILLARD_,JUDGE#XXSEj#