WPCCI $UT5 nCl5>QEYB *R"o ۖFfvcP4łd.*7e)5n+~_xL;LElpBՁ *tl1XV2^4u&L>ȩKJ%:m?l%`:MhƳݚQUo&OӛYybr c;ݗ1$voHk][g\&>oSl ,'rïb`% #xNѫ;U3vW?0s=It͉E73YNTJN5 0#^`Pj%0BFQ} _9ںJ)bjy /?)̙-jtZUw̴,ݳ;_kb#\ % ^ # 0/ w U!N 4 z  i x mz & }C  0 DNExxzz\\\S +"""G& 0U&&C', . 0. 0/ 0s0 021 01 02 0K3b3 03 04 0`5 016 06 07 088 08 0t9 0 : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 0: 0X; 0&< 0< 0= 0$> 0> 0Z? 0?U>v@v@v@ 0 @@@@ BAA 0A D3`B D-B 0KB C ASFF 0G 0DTH AHHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0+s-s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular,-B011C2 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 GreenevillenobisBledsoePikevilleDep'ti]nmatesconclusoryHickmanPendletonTraughber FiteYokleyBlackmonOverstreetreweighGov'tSundquistIcard TimmFurenGinsburgHardinKaylorGuentherNat'lEntmane]xceptSandin S.CtLutcheAhkeenBowlenBufordBulgerArney KanWenzlerG.R.C.C.WoodardrevdUpchurchCoscoUphoffHewitt L.EdWadoodGillami]nterestShoneyJeffriesr]easonableLivingstondispositively COALevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    Rl$      1  8  _Mr.Hedgessconvictionwassubsequentlyaffirmedonappeal.Statev.Hedges,No.252,1987WL9535at 8 *1(Tenn.Crim.App.Apr.15,1987),perm.app.denied(Tenn.Sept.4,1987).Hiscollateralattacksonhisconvictions  haveprovedunsuccessful.Hedgesv.State,No.03C019112CR00379,1993WL73723,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.  March10,1993),perm.app.denied(Tenn.July12,1993);Bickersv.State,1998WL661528,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App. L Sept.25,1998),perm.app.denied(Tenn.1998);Statev.Hedges,Nos.E199901350CCAR3CD,E199901323 H CCAR3CD,2000WL1478569,at*1(Tenn.Crim.App.Oct.6,2000),perm.app.denied(Tenn.April24,2001).  Rl$      6  8  _ByoperationofTenn.R.App.P.24(a),thememorandumoflawsupportingtheDepartmentsmotionto 8 dismisshasnotbeenincludedintheappellaterecord.Accordingly,wehavenowaytoascertainwhatthegroundsof  theDepartmentsmotionwere.  Rl$      3  8  _Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.506.21(VI)(H)(2)statesthat [i]nmateswhorefusetoprovideaspecimenshall 8 bechargedwiththedisciplinaryinfractionRefusalofaDrug/AlcoholScreen.SuchrefusalshallbeconsideredaClass  Boffense,andtheinmateshallbeassessedafeeof$25.00.  Rl$      5  8  _TheDepartmentsmotionsimplyassertedthatMr.Hedgesspetitionshouldbedismissed pursuanttoTenn. 8 R.Civ.P.12.02.Thismotion,likemanyofthemotionsfiledbytheCivilRightsandClaimsDivisionincasesofthis  sort,failstocomplywiththerudimentaryrequirementsofmotionpracticeundertheTennesseeRulesofCivilProcedure.  Tenn.R.Civ.P.7.02(1)requiresthatmotionsmust statewithparticularitythegroundstherefor.Forthepurposesof L aTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion,thismeansthatthemovingpartymuststateinitsmotionwhytheplaintiffhasfailed H tostateaclaimforwhichreliefcanbegranted.WehaverepeatedlyremindedtheAttorneyGeneralthatincludingthe   groundsforaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motioninaseparatememorandumoflawdoesnotcomplywithTenn.R.Civ.  P.7.02(1).O88See,e.g.,Hickmanv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,78S.W.3d285,287(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Pendletonv.  \ Mills,73S.W.3d115,119n.7(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3d632,635n.2(Tenn.Ct.App. X  2001).#8O8d#Oursuggestionsappeartohavegoneunheeded.  Rl$      2  8  _UnderDepartmentofCorrectionadministrativepoliciesandprocedures,prisonruleinfractionsfallintothree 8 classes:A,B,orC.ClassAoffensesarethemostseriousoffenses,whileClassCoffensesaretheleastserious.Tenn.  Dep'tofCorr.PolicyIndex502.05(VI)(A)(2000). ! Rl$      9  8  _Oncethiscaseisremanded,wepresumethatthetrialcourtwilldirecttheDepartmenttofilearecordofMr. 8 Hedgessdisciplinaryproceeding.IftherecorddemonstratesthatMr.Hedgeswasconvictedofrefusingtotakeadrug  screeningtest,thetrialcourtmaydismissMr.Hedgesspetition.If,however,therecordsubstantiatesMr.Hedgess  claimthathewasnotfoundguiltyofrefusingtotakeadrugscreeningtest,thetrialcourtmustvacatethetwentyfive L dollarfine.Nothinginthisopinion,however,willpreventtheDepartmentfromconveningahearingwithregardtothe H chargeofrefusingtotakeadrugscreeningtest.ShouldtheDepartmentconductanotherhearing,Mr.Hedgessfactual   statementsinhispetitionforcommonlawwritofcertioraricanbeviewedasadmissions. Rl$      7  8  _U.S.Const.amend.XIV,1.*+ (_2623  ..  Rl$      4  8  _Mr.Hedgesfiledhispetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthewrongcounty.InHawkinsv.Tennessee 8 DeptofCorr.,No.M200100473COAR3CV,2002WL1677718,at*78(Tenn.Ct.App.July25,2002)(NoTenn.  R.App.P.11applicationfiled),weconstruedTenn.CodeAnn.4121803(1997)% C ׀torequirethatalawsuitforacause  ofactionaccruingwhileaprisonerisincarceratedmustbebroughtinthecountywherethefacilityhousingtheprisoner L islocated.Mr.HedgeswashousedattheMorganCountyRegionalCorrectionalFacilitywhenhefiledhispetitionin H theDavidsonCountyCircuitCourtchallengingthedisciplinaryproceedingsattheSoutheastRegionalCorrectional   Facility.Accordingly,itwasfiledinthewrongcourtbasedonourinterpretationofTenn.CodeAnn.4121803.We  willnotvacatethejudgmentinthiscasebecauseMr.HedgesfiledhispetitionbeforeourdecisioninHawkinswasfiled,  \ andneitherpartyapparentlyraisedtheapplicationofTenn.CodeAnn.4121803eitherinthetrialcourtoronappeal. X    R$      7  it  _ԀTenn.CodeAnn.4121803statesthat [e]xceptasotherwiseprovidedbylaw,anactionthataccruedwhile  theplaintiffinmatewashousedinafacilityoperatedbythedepartmentshallbebroughtinthecountyinwhichthe q facilityislocated. 2 % & %&DO;CR*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,  *5+5 (_23 ` ) hp x )23  ..) hp x ) ` *2+2 (_22  &hhp x &23  ..&hhp x &  */+/ (_21  #p x #23  ..#p x #  *,+, (_20 h  p x 23  .. p x h *)+) (_19  pp x 23  ..pp x   - -*&+& (_18   x 23  .. x   *AA (_17  5+ ` hp x 523  Ԁ5+ ` hp x 5  *GG (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ/%` ` hp x /   *88 (_15  ," hp x ,23  Ԁ," hp x ,  *55 (_14 ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ) hp x ) ` *22 (_13  &hhp x &23  Ԁ&hhp x &  *// (_12  #p x #23  Ԁ#p x #  *,, (_11 h  p x 23  Ԁ p x h *)) (_10  pp x 23  Ԁpp x   (&& &_9   x 23  Ԁ x   (AA &_8  5+ ` hp x 523  5+ ` hp x 5  (GG &_7   /%` ` hp x /23  /%` ` hp x /   (88 &_6  ," hp x ,23  ," hp x ,  (55 &_5 ` ) hp x )23  ) hp x ) ` (22 &_4  &hhp x &23  &hhp x &  (// &_3  #p x #23  #p x #  (,, &_2 h  p x 23   p x h ()) &_1  pp x 23  pp x   &&& $_   x 23   x   \  `&Times New Roman(|G2l$ !.8EdXXd8         0  8 d(|3Qi$ !.8EdXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1    Rl$      8  8  _Tenn.Dep'tCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(V)statesasfollows: 8 8  Fairandimpartialdisciplinaryproceedingswillbeadministeredagainstinmateschargedwith  disciplinaryinfractions.Theprocedurescontainedhereinaloneshallgovernthedisciplinaryprocess. L Thispolicyisnotintendedtocreateanyadditionaldueprocessguaranteesforinmatesbeyondthose H whichareconstitutionallyrequired.Minordeviationsfromtheproceduressetforthbelowshallnot   begroundsfordismissalofadisciplinaryoffenseunlesstheinmateisabletoshowsomeprejudiceas  aresultandtheerrorwouldhaveaffectedthedispositionofthecase.^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Qi$ !.8EdXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Edd8     _TRY,3'Avery 5160 AddressX3' Letter 3'$Avery 5160 Address3'T8  E8XXdd8  @ EINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE 8 @kk$ATNASHVILLE#E|#Ԉ ^&   AssignedonBriefsSeptember10,2002 L XXE #EXXr#GREGORYHEDGESv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFCORRECTIONXXE  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.00C3571BarbaraN.Haynes,Judge n 6 @@*AV) ` dE<E ` A F   @@TTNo.M200200140COAR3CVFiledDecember31,_2002_ A  AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesaprisonerattheSoutheastRegionalCorrectionalFacilitywhowascharged   withrefusingtotakeadrugtestandattemptingtoaltertheresultsofadrugtest.Aprison   disciplinaryboardsentencedtheprisonertotwentydaysindisciplinarysegregationandorderedhim  topayafourdollarfineforattemptingtoalterthetestresultsandatwentyfivedollarfinefor  refusingtotakeadrugtest.Theprisonerfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe  CircuitCourtforDavidsonCountychallengingthedisciplinaryboardsactiononthegroundthatthe x Departmenthadnotcompliedwithitsdrugtestingpolicy.Healsochallengedthetwentyfivedollar d fineonthegroundthathehadnotbeenconvictedofrefusingtotakeadrugtest.Thetrialcourt P grantedtheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionsTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismissthe t< petition.Intheabsenceofthedisciplinaryboardsrecords,wemustpresumethetruthofthe `( allegationsintheprisonerspetitionthathewasnotconvictedofrefusingtotakeadrugtest.Fining L aprisonerforadisciplinaryoffenseofwhichhewasnotconvictedviolatestheDepartments 8 UniformDisciplinaryProceduresandtheprisonersconstitutionallyprotectedpropertyinterests. $ Therefore,weconcludethattheprisonerspetitionstatesaclaimforwhichreliefcanbegranted.  #EXX#XXE Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPartand  ReversedinPart     #EX #XX.EWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. !t! PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,filedaconcurringopinion. "`" GregoryHedges,MountainCity,Tennessee,ProSe. p$8 $ PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andMark H&"& A.Hudson,SeniorCounsel,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellee,TennesseeDepartmentof 4'"' Correction.  (#(   OPINION #EXX #XXE )%* #EXXO#  XXE@) I.  +',   InJanuary1985,GregoryA.Hedgesandtwootherpersonsparticipatedinanarmedrobbery -p). inGreeneville,Tennessee.Theybrokeintothehomeofabankofficerandhiswifeand,after .\*/ terrorizingthecoupleforfourhours,madeoffwithseveralitemsofpersonalproperty.AGreene /H+0 _CountyjurylaterconvictedMr.Hedgesoffirstdegreeburglary,twocountsofaggravatedassault, 8 twocountsofaggravatedkidnaping,andtwocountsofarmedrobbery.Thetrialcourtsentencedhim $ toserveninetysixyearsinthestatepenitentiary. #  1      ׀Mr.Hedgeswaseventuallyincarceratedatthe  SoutheastRegionalCorrectionalFacilityatPikeville.    OnOctober4,2000,correctionsofficersatthePikevillefacilityaskedMr.Hedgesandhis  cellmate,ThomasD.Carter,tosubmittoaurinalysisforreasonablesuspiciondrugtesting.The   laboratoryrejectedthespecimensprovidedbybothmenbecausetheyappearedtohavebeen  t tamperedwith.Accordingly,onOctober5,2000,correctionsofficersrequestedanothersamplefrom  ` bothMr.HedgesandMr.Carter.AsMr.Carterwasprovidingaurinesample,acorrectionsofficer  L  noticedasmallblacktubeunderhispenis.TheofficerstripsearchedMr.Carterandfoundarubber p 8  glovefilledwithurineconnectedtoasmalltubetapedtotheinsideofMr.Cartersboxershorts. \$  ThecorrectionsofficersthenaskedMr.Hedgestoproduceaurinesample,butherefused.Apat H  downsearchofMr.Hedgesyieldedasunscreenbottlefilledwithurinetapedtotheinsideofhis 4  crotch.Asaresultofthisincident,Mr.HedgesandMr.Carterwerechargedwithrefusingadrug    screenandattemptingtoalteradrugscreen,bothClassBdisciplinaryoffenses.( #  2            AprisondisciplinaryboardconductedahearingandsentencedMr.Hedgestotwentydays  indisciplinarysegregation.TheboardalsoorderedhimtopayafourdollarfinefortheClassB  disciplinaryconvictionandatwentyfivedollarfineforrefusingtoprovideaurinesampleforadrug  screeningtest.<  #  3      ׀AfterMr.Hedgessinternalappealsprovedunsuccessful,hefiledaprosepetition p forcommonlawwritofcertiorariintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty.$P  #  4      ׀Heallegedthatthe \ Departmenthadactedarbitrarilybyfailingtofollowitsdrugtestingproceduresandbyfininghim H twentyfivedollarsforrefusingtotakeadrugtestwhenhehadonlybeenconvictedofattempting 8 toalteradrugtest.Ratherthanfilingtherecordoftheprisondisciplinaryboardsproceedings,the $ DepartmentfileditscustomaryconclusoryTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismiss. #  5      ׀OnJanuary  3,2002,thetrialcourtenteredaperfunctoryordergrantingtheDepartmentsmotiontodismiss for  thereasonssetforthintheirmemorandum.8  #  6      ׀Mr.Hedgeshasperfectedthisappeal.  @) II.   @hhTheStandardofReview   t   Wecannotreviewthisappealusingthestandardsofreviewnormallyassociatedwith  L  commonlawwritsofcertioraribecausetheDepartmentelectednottoaddressMr.Hedgesspetition p 8  headon.Instead,asitissooftenwonttodo,theDepartmentfiledaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6) \$  motionassertingthatMr.Hedgesspetitionfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. H  Bymakingthistacticaldecision,theDepartmenthaschosenthetunebywhichitmustnowdance. 4    ThesolepurposeofaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismissistotestthesufficiency    ofthecomplaint,notthestrengthofthepetitionersevidence.Doev.Sundquist,2S.W.3d919,922  (Tenn.1999);Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,Furen&Ginsburg,P.A.,986  S.W.2d550,554(Tenn.1999).Itrequiresthecourtstoreviewthecomplaintalone,Danielv.  HardinCountyGen.Hosp.,971S.W.2d21,23(Tenn.Ct.App.1997),andtolooktothecomplaints  substanceratherthanitsform.Kaylorv.Bradley,912S.W.2d728,731(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). p DismissalunderTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)iswarrantedonlywhentheallegedfactswillnotentitle \ thepetitionertorelieforwhenthecomplaintistotallylackinginclarityandspecificity.Dobbsv. H Guenther,846S.W.2d270,273(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). l4   ATenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionadmitsthetruthofalltherelevantandmaterialfactual D  allegationsinthecomplaintbutassertsthatnocauseofactionarisesfromthesefacts.Winchester 0 v.Little,996S.W.2d818,82122(Tenn.Ct.App.1998);Smithv.FirstUnionNat'lBank,958  S.W.2d113,115(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Accordingly,courtsreviewingacomplaintbeingtestedby  aTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionmustconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavorofthepetitioner  bytakingallfactualallegationsinthecomplaintastrue,Steinv.DavidsonHotel,945S.W.2d714,  716(Tenn.1997),andbygivingthepetitionerthebenefitofalltheinferencesthatcanbereasonably   drawnfromthepleadedfacts.RobertBanks,Jr.&JuneF.Entman,TennesseeCivilProcedure5 !  6(g),at254(1999).OnappealfromanordergrantingaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion,wemust 8 likewisepresumethatthefactualallegationsinthecomplaintaretrue,andwemustreviewthetrial $ courtslegalconclusionsregardingtheadequacyofthecomplaintwithoutapresumptionof  correctness.Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,Furen&Ginsburg,P.A.,986S.W.2d  at554;Steinv.DavidsonHotel,945S.W.2dat716.  @^^( @@dd) III.   @ TheAppellateRecord  t    Aswehaveontwoprioroccasions,weareconstrainedtocommentonthestateofthe  L  appellaterecordinthiscase.BecauseoftheDepartmentstacticaldecisionnottofiletherecordof p 8  theproceedingsoftheprisondisciplinaryboard,wearefacedwiththetaskofreviewingthetrial \$  courtsdenialofMr.Hedgesspetitionwithlessthanacompleterecordofthedisciplinary H  proceedings.TheDepartmentsdecision,whilewarrantedinnarrowcircumstances,isdiscordant 4  withthetraditionalandcustomaryproceduresgoverningtheconsiderationofpetitionsforawritof    commonlawcertiorari.Hortonv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,No.M199902798COAR3CV,2002    WL31126656,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.26,2002)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);  Livingstonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,No.M199901138COAR3CV,2001WL747643,at*5  (Tenn.Ct.App.July5,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).Itspracticaleffectinthis  caseandotherssimilartoitistowastethetimeandresourcesofthetrialandappellatecourts.    HadtheDepartmentsimplyfiledtherecordoftheprisondisciplinaryproceeding,boththe \ trialcourtandthiscourtwouldhavebeenabletodeterminewhetherMr.Hedgesisentitledtothe H reliefheseeksandtorulefinallyanddispositivelyonhisclaims.Withouttherecord,weareleft l4 withonlytheallegationsinMr.Hedgesspetitionandthedocumentshedecidedtoattachtohis X  petition.BecausetheDepartmentfiledamotiontodismisswithoutfilingtheboardsrecords,we D  mustalsopresumethattheallegationsinMr.Hedgesspetitionaretrue!nomatterhowfarfetched 0 theymayappearontheirface.Thus,whiletheboardsrecordsmayverywelldemonstrate  conclusivelythatMr.Hedgeswasconvictedforrefusingtotakeadrugtest,theDepartmentstactics  requireustopresumethathewasnot.WhytheDepartmentwouldwanttopaintitselfintothis  proceduralcornerisbeyondus.  @dd) IV.  !  @   TheDepartmentsAdherenceToItsDrugTestingPolicies  "l!   Mr.HedgesassertsthatheisentitledtojudicialreliefbecausetheDepartmentssecond |$D # requestforaurinesamplewasnotconsistentwiththeDepartmentspublisheddrugtestingpolicy. h%0!$ HeassertsthattheDepartmenteffectivelyamendeditspolicywithoutnotifyinghimwhenitdecided T&"% torequireasecondurinesampleafterthelaboratoryrejectedthefirstsamplebecauseofsuspicions @'#& thatithadbeentamperedwith.Wefindnolegalmeritinthisargumentfortworeasons. ,(#'   First,Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.506.21(VI)(A)(8)(a)listsfivegroundsforconductinga *%)  reasonablesuspiciondrugoralcoholscreening.Amongthesegroundsare(1)thereceiptof *&* confidentialinformationfromareliablesourceand(2)unusualactionsorbehaviorbytheprisoner. +'+  Receivinginformationfromthetestinglaboratorythataurinesamplehasbeentamperedwith ,(, amountstoinformationfromareliablesourcethataprisonersuspectedofdrugoralcoholusehas 8 engagedinunusualactionsorbehavior!thatbehaviorbeingtamperingwiththetest. $    Second,notwithstandingtheinformationreceivedfromthetestinglaboratory,theDepartment  couldstillrelyontheinformationthatprompteditsdecisiontorequestthefirsturinetest.Mr.  HedgeshasnotassertedthattheDepartmentlackedreasonablesuspiciontorequestthefirsturine  test.Accordingly,wemaypresumethattheDepartmenthadsufficientinformationtowarrantits   firstrequestforaurinesample.Thisinformationwouldlikewisehavebeensufficienttojustifythe  t Departmentssecondrequestforaurinesample.  ` @) V. p 8  @ TheTwentyFiveDollarFineForRefusingaDrugTest  \$    Mr.Hedgesalsoassertsthathispetitionstatesaclaimthatwouldwarrantreliefpursuantto 4  acommonlawwritofcertiorari.Heassertsthatbyfininghimtwentyfivedollarsforrefusingto    takeadrugtestwhenhewasconvictedonlyofattemptingtoalteradrugtestviolatedthe    DepartmentsUniformDisciplinaryProcedures,aswellashisdueprocessrights.Insteadof  addressingthisassertionheadon,theDepartment,relyingonSandinv.Conner,515U.S.472,115  S.Ct.2293(1995),assertsthatMr.Hedgesfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.  Ineffect,theDepartmentarguesthatevenifitdidfineMr.Hedgeswithoutconvictinghimofthe  underlyingoffense,Mr.Hedgesisnotentitledtojudicialreliefbecausethepunishmenthereceived p isnotseriousenoughtowarrantthecourtsattention. \   TotheextentthatMr.Hedgesisbasinghisarbitrarinessandillegalityclaimonalleged l4 proceduraldueprocessviolations,hemustfirstallegethathehasbeendeprivedofaninterest X  entitledtoprotectionundertheDueProcessClause.! #  7      ׀Rowev.BoardofEduc.,938S.W.2d351,354 D  (Tenn.1996);Armstrongv.DepartmentofVeteransAffairs,959S.W.2d595,597-98(Tenn.Ct. 0 App.1997).Disciplinaryproceedingsareanordinarypartofprisonlife.TheUnitedStatesSupreme  Courthasheldthataprisonerslibertyinterestsareimplicatedonlywhenadisciplinaryaction  imposesan atypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsof  prisonlife,Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.at486,115S.Ct.at230001.Specifically,Sandinv.Conner  involvedaprisonerplacedinpunitivesegregationforthirtydays,whichtheCourtconcluded did   notworkamajordisruptioninhisenvironment.Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.at486,115S.Ct.at !  2300. "l!   However,thiscourtrecentlyheldthattherationaleofSandinv.Connerdoesnotapplytoa |$D # prisonersdueprocessclaimspredicatedonthelossofapropertyinterest.Jeffriesv.Tennessee h%0!$ DeptofCorr.,No.M200102300COAR3CV,____WL____,at*___(Tenn.Ct.App.Dec.31, T&"% 2002).Wealsoheldthatstateprisonershaveapropertyinterestinthefundsintheirprisontrust @'#& fundaccounts,andthedueprocessclauseprotectsthatpropertyinterest.Jeffriesv.TennesseeDept ,(#' ofCorr.,____WL____,at*___.Accordingly,weconcludedthattheDepartmentmustaccord )$( prisonersalltheproceduraldueprocessrightsessentialtoafairhearinggrantedtheminitsUniform *%) DisciplinaryProcedureswhenitundertakestolevyadisciplinaryfineagainsttheirtrustfund *&* accounts.Jeffriesv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,____WL____,at*___.Basedonourholdingin 8 Jeffriesv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,theDepartmentsrelianceonSandinv.ConnertoshieldMr. $ Hedgesstwentyfivedollarfinefromjudicialreviewismisplaced.    WehavealreadynotedthattheDepartmentsTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionforcesusto  presumethatMr.Hedgessassertionthathewasnotconvictedofrefusingtotakeadrugscreening  testistrue.Thatbeingthecase,theDepartmenthadnobasisforfininghimtwentyfivedollars.   AccordingtoTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.506.21(VI)(H)(2),thisfinecanonlybeassessedagainst  t prisonerswhorefusetosubmittoanalcoholordrugscreeningtest.Whiletwentyfivedollarsmay  ` notbeagreatamountofmoneyoutsidethewalls,itissignificanttoaprisonerwhomustuseitto  L  payforvariousfees,commissaryitems,copies,postage,andotherexpenses.Withoutabasisfor p 8  imposingthefine,theDepartmentactedarbitrarilyandcapriciouslyandviolatedMr.Hedgessdue \$  processrightswhenitorderedhimtopaythefine.Accordingly,Mr.Hedgessallegationthathewas H  finedforanoffenseofwhichhewasnotconvictedstatesaclaimforrelief. 4    TheDepartmentsfinalcartbeforethehorseargumentisthatMr.Hedgesisnotentitledto    reliefbecauseheadmittedlaterinhiscertioraripetitionthathehadrefusedtotaketheseconddrug  screeningtest.Thisargumentmissesthepoint.ByvirtueofitsownUniformDisciplinary  Procedures,theDepartmentmaynotpunishaprisonerforadisciplinaryinfractionwithoutfirst  affordingtheprisonera fairandimpartialdisciplinaryproceeding.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.  502.01(V).\ #  8      ׀Prisonersarepresumedinnocentofthedisciplinarychargesagainstthemandcannot p befoundguiltyuntiltheDepartmentprovesthechargebyapreponderanceoftheevidence.Tenn. \ Dep'tCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(I)(1).Onlyafteraprisonerisfoundguiltyofadisciplinary H offensecantheprisondisciplinaryboardsentencetheprisonertodisciplinarysegregation,finethe l4 prisonerpursuanttopolicyguidelines,orboth.Tenn.Dep'tCorr.PolicyNos.502.01(VI)(E)(3) X  (a)(6),502.01(VI)(E)(3)(a)(13),and502.01(VI)(E)(3)(a)(14). D    Imposingafineonaprisonerforadisciplinaryoffensewithoutfirstfindingtheprisoner  guiltyoftheoffenseisnota minordeviationfromtheUniformDisciplinaryProcedures.Itis  arbitraryconductthatstrikesattheheartofthefairnessofthedisciplinaryproceeding.IfMr.Hedges  wasnotfoundguiltyofrefusingadrugscreenbyapreponderanceoftheevidenceatadisciplinary  boardhearing,theDepartmentviolateditsownpolicyandthetenantsoffairnessbyfininghim   twentyfivedollarsforrefusingadrugscreen. !   T&"% @dd) VI.  8   WeaffirmthedismissaloftheportionofMr.HedgesspetitionbasedontheDepartments  adherencetoitsdrugtestingpolicies.Wereversethedismissaloftheportionofthepetition  challengingthetwentyfivedollarfineandremandthecasetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedings  consistentwiththisopinion. #  9      ׀WetaxthecostsofthisappealtotheTennesseeDepartmentof  Correction.      `     h     _____________________________ p 8     `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE