WPC6  6C5Zz*IMw7KKb[*u}`TvLxR<AH#"]<8\S#ԍ+)RkugLVP_/AS12"ZH𩪭Zi9 ۋt UyA|| q"# U!PC:y8UvF+֡_vP]Ll;/qԑ/ ^6|" ^kX .b'G-N1E'/fW;v >y38#g'--ZӪ|3>˙b#\ % 0 0Dp ^ UN z  wZ 4^ r   I mNGpE 0Ui 0 0 0f 0% 0 0 0> 0 0 0K! 0"$" 0$ 0% 0G& 0& 0' 0( 0( 0g)b5* 0=* 0* 0+ 0;, 0, 0q- 0.T.."00000000000000000000000000 01111 B11 0 2 D32 D-2 0K33 ASZ33 0s4 0D5 A[5HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0  R$      1  su  __Mr.Hortonsconvictionwassubsequentlyaffirmedonappeal.SeeState_v._ԀHorton,No.01C019312CR  00435,1994WL548750(Tenn.Crim.App.Oct.6,1994)perm.app._denied_(Tenn.Jan.30,1995).(`*$.8dd8    (#$  0  Mj:-s ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular 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.wpt,-DocsD3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U  R$      2  su  __UnderDepartmentofCorrectionadministrativepoliciesandprocedures,prisonruleinfractionsfallintothree  classes:A,B,orC.ClassCoffensesaretheleastseriousoffenses.SeeTenn.DeptofCorr.PolicyIndex502.05  (VI)(A)(2000). = R$      4  su  __AproperpartyisnotnecessarilyanecessaryorindispensablepartyforthepurposesofTenn.R.Civ.P.19.01.  Apersonbecomesanecessaryorindispensablepartyonlyifheorshewillbedirectlyaffectedbythedecreeandwhose  interestisnotrepresentedbyanyotherpartytothelitigation.Gilleyv.Jernigan,597S.W.2d313,318(Tenn.Ct.App. H 1979).   R$      5  su  __Mr.HortonassertsthatMr.Howardwouldhavetestified thatpetitionerswalkc[sic]wasinthecommissary  lineand[thathe]seenthepetitionerinthecommissarylineand..._issuedthepetitionerhiscommissary_Ԁatthetimeof  thealleged_offense._ԀWedonotseehowthistestimonycouldhavehelpedexonerateMr.Horton.Ifanything,itappears H tocorroboratethechargingofficersreport,thatMr.Hortongotintothecommissaryqueuebeforetheeveningcountof  L inmateshadbeencompleted.Itwasunquestionablywithinthechairpersonsdiscretiontorefusetobringinawitness  whosetestimonywouldhaveaddednothingtoMr.Hortonscase.Cf.Perry_v._ԀCampbell,No.M199800943COAR3  CV,2001WL46988,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.22,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11_application_Ԁfiled)(holdingthatthe X disciplinaryboardchairdidnotabusehisdiscretionbyrefusingtoallowaninmatetocallawitnesswhosetestimony  \ wouldhavebeencumulative).*+ (_2623  ..*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 ,    R$      3  su  __Inhisappellatebrief,Mr.Hortonclaimsthatthesecondhearingresultedinhimreceivingawrittenwarning;  _however_,heprovidesnocitationtotherecordtosupportthatassertion.SeeTenn.R.App.P.27(g).Thedisciplinary  reporthearingsummaryintherecordindicatesthatheonlyreceivedaverbalwarning.*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   &&& $_   x 23   x    J R$      6  su  __Itmayverywellbethatthefullrecordoftheproceedingsregardingthisdisciplinaryinfractionwouldreveal  thatthecommissionersdesigneeinfactapprovedthepunishmentpriortoitsimposition.However,theDepartment  electednottofilethecompleterecordoftheproceeding.Asanappellatecourt,wemustbaseourdecisiononlyonthe H contentsoftheappellaterecord.  H  (|G2$ *!.8=dd8         0  su d(|3_$ *!.8=dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3_$ *!.8=dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK *!.8=dd8     _  =8XXdd8  8P@ \=INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#=\9#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsOctober12,1999 L XX= #=XX-#WILLIAMH.HORTONv.TENNESSEEDEPT.OFCORRECTION,etal.XX=  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.98612IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M199902798_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember26,_2002_   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenaprisonerandtheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection   regardingtwominorClassCdisciplinaryinfractions.Afterhisinternalappealsweredenied,the   prisonerfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtforDavidson  Countychallengingthreeproceduralaspectsofthedisciplinaryhearings.TheDepartmentfileda p Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismissthepetition.InsteadofdirectingtheDepartmenttofile \ theofficialrecordsofthetwoproceedings,thetrialcourtdismissedtheprisonerscomplaint Hx regardingoneproceedinganddirectedtheDepartmenttosubmitadditionalinformationregarding 4d theotherproceeding.AftertheDepartmentsubmittedadditionalinformation,thetrialcourt,now  P treatingtheDepartmentsmotionasamotionforsummaryjudgment,dismissedtheremainderof  < theprisonerscomplaint.Theprisonerhasperfectedthisappeal.Wehavedeterminethatthetrial ( courtproperlydismissedtheprisonerschallengestothedisciplinaryproceedingregardingthebeing  outofplaceinfraction.However,wehavedeterminedthattheprisonerhasstatedaclaimwith  regardtotheDepartmentscompliancewithTenn._Dept_ԀCorr.PolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(2)  regardingthedisrespectinfraction.Therefore,wereversethedismissalofthisportionofthe  prisonerspetitionandremandthecaseforfurtherproceedings.   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart l andVacatedinPart  X    #=X#XX.=WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cain,J.,joined. 0!`" PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,filedaconcurringopinion. "L# WilliamH.Horton,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSe. #$!% PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;andPamela %"' S._Lorch_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection. &#( TomAnderson,Jackson,Tennessee,fortheappellee,DoctorR._Crants_. (%*   OPINION #=XX #XX= h*', #=XX#  XX=@) I.  @,p).   InNovember1992,aDavidsonCountyjuryconvictedWilliamH.Hortonofpossessing .H+0 cocainewiththeintenttoresell.Thetrialcourtsubsequentlysentencedhimtotwentyoneyearsin /4,1 8P 8H 8  _thestatepenitentiary. #  1      ׀By1997,Mr.HortonwasaninmateintheSouthCentralCorrectionalCenter  inClifton,aprisonmanagedbyCorrectionsCorporationofAmerica( CCA)underacontractwith  theStateofTennessee.Mr.Hortonhadtwoseparateruninswithprisonofficialsduringthefallof  1997.First,headdressedacorrectionalofficeras boy.Later,inaseparateincident,helinedup  togototheprisoncommissarywhileacountofprisonerswasbeingtaken.Prisonofficialscharged p himwithaClassCdisciplinaryoffenseineachoftheseincidents. #  2       \   AprisondisciplinaryboardcomposedofCCAemployeesconductedseparatehearings 4 t regardingeachofMr.Hortonsoffenses.Withregardtothefirstoffense,theboardfoundMr.  ` Hortonguiltyofdisrespectand,aspunishment,issuedawrittenwarningandimposedatwomonth  L  suspensionofhisabilitytoreceivepackages.Atthesecondhearing,theboardfoundMr.Horton  8  guiltyofbeingoutofplaceandissuedhimaverbalwarning.%, #  3      ׀Mr.Hortonsinternalappealstothe  $  AssistantCommissionerforOperationsandtheCommissionerofCorrectionwereunsuccessful.     InMarch1998,Mr.Hortonfiledaprosepetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariinthe   ChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountychallengingthelegalityofbothdisciplinaryproceedings.He   namedasdefendantsboththeTennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionandDoctorR.Crants,CCAs  thenchiefexecutiveofficer.BoththeDepartmentandMr.CrantsmovedtodismissMr.Hortons l petition,butbeforethetrialcourtcouldactontheirmotions,Mr.Hortonmovedforadefault X judgmentagainstMr.Crants.ThetrialcourtdeniedMr.Hortonsmotionfordefault.Italso D dismissedMr.Crantsasapartyanddismissedtheportionofthepetitionchallengingthefirst 0p disciplinaryproceedinginvolvingthedisrespectcharge. \   WithregardtoMr.Hortonschallengestothebeingoutofplacecharge,thetrialcourt 4 dismissedallhisclaimsexceptfortheclaimthathehadbeenpreventedfrompresentinghis   witnessesatthehearing.Onthatissue,thetrialcourtdirectedtheDepartmentto submitany   necessarydocumentsoraffidavitsforthecourttoconsider.TheDepartmentsubmittedanaffidavit  fromthechairmanofthedisciplinaryboardgivinghisversionofwhyMr.Hortonwasnotallowed  topresenthisdesiredwitness.AfterMr.Hortonresponded,thetrialcourt,treatingtheDepartments  motionasoneforsummaryjudgment,dismissedMr.Hortonswitnessclaimonthegroundthatthe | disciplinaryboardhadactedwithinitsdiscretion.Thisproseappealfollowed. h  $D # @) II.   @  TheRecordonAppeal     Beforeconsideringthesubstantiveissuesraisedonthisappeal,wenotethatthiscaseisyet  anotheroccasionwherewearebeingaskedtoreviewthetrialcourtsdenialofapetitionfor p commonlawwritofcertiorari.Aswehaverecentlynoted,wearetroubledbyaprocedureinwhich \ trialcourtsdisposeofpetitionsforcommonlawwritofcertiorariwhenthepartieshavefiledonly H  portionsoftherecord.Livingstonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,No.M199901138COAR3CV, 4 t 2001WL747643,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.July5,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  ` AswesaidinLivingston,  L  8  8`   [W]ehaveconcernsaboutindiscriminateuseofaprocedurewhich  $  involvesfilingportionsoftheadministrativerecordfortworeasons.   First,thereisthedangerofconfusionbetweentheissueofwhether   thewritshouldbegrantedtocompelfilingoftherecordwiththe   issueofwhetherreliefshouldbegrantedbasedontherecordandthe   petition.Second,thestatutoryproceduresestablishedforreviewof  decisionsofadministrativeboardsandcommissionsdonotappearto l contemplatefilingofonlyportionsoftheadministrativerecord.X` x` x Livingstonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,2001WL747643,at*7. 0p   Thisproblem,whilebadenoughinitsownright,wascompoundedinthisproceeding H becausethetrialcourtdirectedtheDepartmentto submitanynecessarydocumentsoraffidavitsfor 4 thecourttoconsiderononlyoneofMr.Hortonsallegations.Thetrialcourtshouldhaveissued   thewritofcertioraridirectingtheDepartmenttofiletheofficialrecordinbothofthechallenged   proceedings.Theendresultoftheprocedurefollowedbythetrialcourtisthatwehavebeforeus  onlyselectedportionsofthedisciplinaryboardsrecordalongwithnewmaterialspreparedin  responsetothetrialcourtsdirections.Thisisnowaytorunarailroad.Nevertheless,todecide  whetherthetrialcourtcorrectlydismissedMr.Hortonspetition,wewillworkwiththerecordwe | have. h @^^( III.  @!  @hh TheStandardofReview  ,"l!   Acommon-lawwritofcertiorariisanextraordinaryjudicialremedy.Robinsonv.Traughber, $D # 13S.W.3d361,364(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Fitev.StateBd.ofParoles,925S.W.2d543,544(Tenn. $0!$ Ct.App.1996).Itisnotavailableasamatterofright,Boycev.Williams,215Tenn.704,713-14, %"% 389S.W.2d272,277(1965);Yokleyv.State,632S.W.2d123,127(Tenn.Ct.App.1981),butrather &#& isaddressedtothetrialcourt'sdiscretion.Blackmonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,29S.W.3d875, '#' 878(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Accordingly,decisionstograntordenyacommon-lawwritofcertiorari ($( arereviewedusingthefamiliar abuseofdiscretionstandard.Robinsonv.Traughber,13S.W.3d )%) at364.Underthisstandard,areviewingcourtshouldnotreverseatrialcourt'sdiscretionarydecision x*&* unlessitisbasedonamisapplicationofcontrollinglegalprinciplesoraclearlyerroneousassessment d+'+ oftheevidence,Overstreetv.Shoney's,Inc.,4S.W.3d694,709(Tenn.Ct.App.1999),orunlessit P,(, affirmativelyappearsthatthetrialcourt'sdecisionwasagainstlogicorreasoning,andcausedan <-|)- injusticeorinjurytothecomplainingparty.Marcusv.Marcus,993S.W.2d596,601(Tenn.1999);  Douglasv.EstateofRobertson,876S.W.2d95,97(Tenn.1994).    Thescopeofreviewunderacommon-lawwritofcertiorariisextremelylimited.Courtsmay  not(1)inquireintotheintrinsiccorrectnessofthelowertribunal'sdecision,Arnoldv.TennesseeBd. p ofParoles,956S.W.2d478,480(Tenn.1997);Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,879S.W.2d \ 871,873(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),(2)reweightheevidence,Wattsv.CivilServ.Bd.,606S.W.2d274, H  277(Tenn.1980);Hoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningAppeals,924S.W.2d900,904(Tenn. 4 t Ct.App.1996),or(3)substitutetheirjudgmentforthatofthelowertribunal.421Corp.v.  ` MetropolitanGov't,36S.W.3d469,474(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Rather,thewritpermitsthecourts  L  toexaminethelowertribunal'sdecisiontodeterminewhetherthetribunalexceededitsjurisdiction  8  oractedillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.Turnerv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,993S.W.2d78,  $  80(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Danielsv.Traughber,984S.W.2d918,924(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).   @dd) IV.   @TheClaimsAgainstMr.Crants      Beyondhissubstantivechallengestothedisciplinaryproceedings,Mr.Hortontakesissue l withthetrialcourtsdenialofhismotionfordefaultjudgmentagainstMr.Crantsanditsdecision X todismissMr.Crantsasanimproperpartytothesuit.Weneednottarrylongwiththeseprocedural D matters. 0p @) A.  H   Defaultjudgmentsarenotfavoredbythecourts.CoinAutomaticCo.v.EstateofDixon,213   Tenn.311,321,375S.W.2d858,862(1963);Nelsonv.Simpson,826S.W.2d483,48586(Tenn.   Ct.App.1991).Asidefrominstanceswhendefaultjudgmentsareavailableasasanction,default  judgmentsareonlyappropriatewhenadefendantfailstopleadorotherwisedefendagainstthesuit  asprovidedintherulesofprocedure.Tenn.R.Civ.P.55.01.Whileadefendantmayalwaysanswer  acomplaint,adefendantmayalsodefendagainstasuitbyseekingtohaveacomplaintdismissed | ononeormoreofthegroundssetoutinTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02.Adefendantraisingdefenseslisted h inRule12.02maydosobyfilingamotionpriortoansweringthecomplaint.Filingapropermotion T  todismissconstitutes otherwisedefend[ing]againstalawsuitascontemplatedinRule55.01, @!  makingadefaultjudgmentimproper.Rudnickiv.Sullivan,189F.Supp.714,715(D.Mass.1960); ,"l! Howsev.Johnson,No.M199800513COAR3CV,2000WL758469,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.June #X" 13,2000)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled). $D #   Inthiscase,Mr.CrantsfiledamotiontodismissMr.Hortonscomplaintforfailuretostate %"% aclaimforwhichreliefcanbegranted.ThatmotionwasonfileandpendingwhenMr.Horton &#& movedforadefaultjudgment.BecauseMr.Crantshadappearedandinterposedarecognized '#' defensetothecomplaintbythetimeMr.Hortonsoughtadefaultjudgment,thetrialcourtcorrectly ($( deniedMr.Hortonsmotion. )%)  <-|)- @) B.     Mr.HortonalsoinsiststhatMr.Crantsisaproperpartytothisproceeding.Heassertsthat  Mr.CrantsandCCAplayedanunlawfulroleindisciplininghimbyconducting aKangarootype  courtprocess...[and]then,uponcompletionofsaidperformancesendtheresultstothe p [Department],whothenrubberstamp[s]theactionsoftheCCAstaff....However,Mr.Crants \ doesnotbecomeanecessarypartysimplybecauseCCAemployeesconductedthedisciplinary H  proceeding. 4 t   Theproperpartiestoalawsuitarethosewhohavelegalorequitablerightsinthesubjectof  8  thelitigation.Steelev.Satterfield,148Tenn.649,654,257S.W.413,414(1923);WilliamH.  $  Inman,GibsonsSuitsinChancery51(7thed.1988)( GibsonsSuitsinChancery). #  4      ׀Tobea   properparty,apersonshouldbesoconnectedwiththedisputeastobeunderanenforceable   obligationtotheplaintifforshouldhavesomerightorpositionwithregardtothesubjectofthe   litigationthatwouldentitlehimtodefendagainstanyjudgmentthecourtmaygive.GibsonsSuits   inChancery53.Apersonisnotaproperpartyifheorshehasnointerestatstakeinthelawsuit  andcannotbeaffectedbyanydecision.Atthemotiontodismissstage,decisionsregardingwhois l aproperpartymustbedeterminedfromtheallegationsofthecomplaint.Gossv.Hutchins,751 X S.W.2d821,82425(Tenn.1988). D   Thebasicproceduralframeworkgoverningpetitionsforacommonlawwritofcertiorariis \ setoutinTenn.CodeAnn.279101,114(2000).FentressCountyBeerBd.v.Cravens,209 H Tenn.679,68586,356S.W.2d260,263(1962);Levyv.BoardofZoningAppeals,No.M1999 4 00126COAR3CV,2001WL1141351,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.27,2001)(NoTenn.R.App.   P.11applicationfiled).Tenn.CodeAnn.279104specificallydealswiththeproperparties   defendantintheseproceedings.Itprovidesthatthepetitioner shallnameasdefendantsthe  particularboard...andsuchotherpartiesofrecord,ifsuch,aswereinvolvedinthehearingbefore  theboardorcommission,andwhodonotjoinaspetitioners.Inadditiontotheboarditself,the  properpartiestoacertiorariproceedingaretheindividualsorentitleswhowerepartiestothedispute | attheboardlevel.Levyv.BoardofZoningAppeals,2001WL1141351at*5. h   Inthiscase,Mr.CrantswasnotpersonallyinvolvedineitherofMr.Hortonsdisciplinary @!  hearings.HehasnopersonalrightsatstakeintheclaimsmadebyMr.Hortonconcerningthose ,"l! hearings.Hisonlyconnectiontothiscaseisthatheischiefexecutiveofficeroftheprivate #X" corporationthatmanagestheSouthCentralCorrectionalCenter.Thatdoesnotmakehimaproper $D # partytoMr.Hortonspetition.ItiswellsettledthatnoCCAemployeehasfreestandingpowerto $0!$ takedisciplinaryactionsagainststateprisoners.Thedisciplineofprisonersisanondelegableduty %"% oftheState.Tenn.CodeAnn.4124110(1997).ThoughtheprisondisciplinaryboardatSouth &#& CentralCorrectionalCenteriscomprisedofCCAemployees,thoseindividualsonlyrecommend '#' punishment.ActualdisciplineisnotimposeduntilarepresentativeoftheDepartmentreviewsand ($( approvestheboardsrecommendation.Mandelav.Campbell978S.W.2d531,533(Tenn.1998).  Aswehaverecentlyheld,itfollowsfromthisarrangementthatapetitionforcertioraridirectedat  oneormoreCCAemployeesoveramatterofprisondisciplinefailstostateaclaimforrelief.The  properpartydefendantinsuchcasesistheDepartment,astheresponsiblegovernmentalagency.  Wilsonv.SouthCent.Corr.FacilityDisciplinaryBd.,No.M200000303COARMCV,2000WL p 1425228,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.28,2000)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled);Turner \ v.Campbell,15S.W.3d466,468(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Forthisreasonwefindthatthechancery H  courtdidnoterrindismissingMr.HortonscomplaintagainstMr.Crants. 4 t @) V.   L  @aa TheDisciplinaryProceedings   8    Mr.Hortontakesissuewiththreeaspectsofthedisciplinaryproceedings.Withregardtothe   hearingonthedisrespectcharge,hecomplainsthatthedisciplinaryboardconvictedhimwithout   requiringthereportingofficertoappearandtestify.Withregardtothehearingonthechargeof   beingoutofplace,heassertsthatthedisciplinaryboardactedarbitrarilyandillegallybyrefusingto   permithimtocallastaffmemberasawitness.Finally,withregardtobothhearings,heclaimsthat  theproceedingsweredefectivebecausethe CommissionersDesigneedidnotapprovethe l disciplinaryboardsrecommendeddiscipline. X @) A.  0p @: :  Mr.HortonsInabilitytoCallaWitness  \   Prisonersdonothaveanunqualifiedrighttocallwitnessesatdisciplinaryhearings.They 4 shouldbeallowedtocallwitnessesandpresentdocumentaryevidenceintheirdefensebutonlyas   longasdoingsowillnotbeundulyhazardoustoeitherinstitutionalsafetyorothervalidcorrectional   goals.Accordingly,prisonofficialsmay,intheirdiscretion,controlaprisonersrighttocall  witnessestoassurethattheprisonerdoesnotthreateninstitutionalsafetyorundermineinstitutional  goals.Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,566,94S.Ct.2963,297980(1974);Davisv.Campbell,  No.01A019712CH00755,1998WL812533,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.25,1998)(NoTenn.R. | App.P.11applicationfiled). h   TheDepartmentsUniformDisciplinaryProceduresbalanceaprisonersinterestin @!  presentingwitnessesinhisdefenseandtheinstitutionsinterestinmaintainingdisciplineandorder. ,"l! Prisonersmaypresentthetestimonyofrelevantwitnessesunlessrequiringthewitnesstoappearwill #X" poseathreattoinstitutionalorder.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(3)(c)(6)(1995). $D # However,prisonersdesiringtocallanotherprisoneroramemberoftheprisonstaffasawitness $0!$ mustcompletean inmatewitnessrequestformandsubmitittothechairpersonofthedisciplinary %"% boardatleasttwentyfourhourspriortothehearing.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo. &#& 9502.01(VI)(D)(3)(d)(1).Theboardchairmayexcuseaprisonersfailuretocomplywiththisrule '#' aftertakingintoconsiderationthenatureoftheproposedwitnessstestimonyandthedifficultyto ($( obtainthewitnessspresenceatthehearing.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(3)(d)(2). )%) Prisonerswhoarenotpermittedtocallaparticularwitnessmaypresentthewitnessswritten x*&* statementinstead.Tenn.Dept.Corr.PolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(3)(d)(3). d+'+   P,(,   Mr.Hortonannouncedonthedayofthehearingonhisbeingoutofplacechargethathe   desiredtocallDonHoward,acorrectionalcounselor,asawitness.Thechairpersonofthe  disciplinaryboarddeniedMr.Hortonsrequestbecausehehadnotsubmittedtherequired inmate  witnessrequestform.Mr.Hortondoesnotdenythathefailedtosubmittherequiredform.The  chairpersonwasactingwithinhisdiscretionwhenhedeclinedtopermitMr.HortontocallMr. p Howardasawitness,andthiscourtneednotgrantrelieftopersonswhoareresponsiblefortheerror \ theyarecomplainingaboutonappeal.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a). #  5      ׀ H  @) B.   ` @  FailureoftheReportingOfficertoTestify  L     Mr.Hortonalsoinsiststhatthedisciplinaryboardactedillegallybyconvictinghimonthe  $  disrespectchargewithoutrequiringthereportingofficertoappearandtestify.TheDepartments   UniformDisciplinaryProceduresrequirethereportingofficerwhowitnessedtheinfractiontotestify   atthedisciplinaryhearing unlessthisrequirementiswaivedbytheinmateinwritingandprovide   that,bywaivingthereportingofficerspresence,theprisoneragrees tohavetheofficersstatements   inthedisciplinaryreportacceptedbytheboardastestimony.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.  9201(V)(D)(3)(c)(4). l   ThecarboncopyofthereportofthedisciplinaryproceedingsinvolvingMr.Hortons D disrespectchargecontainshissignedwaiverofhisrighttohavethereportingofficerpresent. 0p Becauseheeffectivelywaivedthisrightduringthedisciplinaryproceeding,hecannottakeissueon \ appealwiththefailureofthereportingofficertotestify.Tenn.R.App.P.36(a).Basedonthe H documentsattachedtoMr.Hortonscomplaint,thetrialcourtproperlydismissedtheportionofhis 4 petitionforcommonlawwritofcertioraripredicatedonthereportingofficersfailuretotestify.   @) C.   @  ReviewandApprovalbytheCommissionersDesignee     Theemployeesofprivatelyoperatedprisons,suchastheSouthCentralCorrectionalCenter, | donothavetheauthoritytodisciplineprisoners.Tenn.CodeAnn.4124110(5).Thisauthority h is,asamatteroflaw,reservedtotheCommissionerandcannotbedelegated.Accordingly,with T  regardtodisciplinaryproceedingsinvolvingClassCdisciplinaryoffenses,theUniformDisciplinary @!  Proceduresrequirethechairpersonofadisciplinaryboardconsistingofemployeesofaprivate ,"l! contractortoforwardtheboardsproposedpunishment,unlessthepunishmentissimplya verbal #X" warning,tothecommissionersdesigneepriortotheimpositionofpunishment.Tenn.DeptCorr. $D # PolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(2)(1995).Accordingly,theboardsproposedpunishmentissimplya $0!$ recommendation,andthefinalapprovalofadisciplinaryactionrestssolelywiththecommissioners  designee.Mandelav.Campbell,978S.W.2dat533.    Afterthetrialcourtdecidedthiscase,weaddressedtheconsequencesofadisciplinary  boardsfailuretoobtaintheapprovalofthecommissionersdesigneebeforeimposingdiscipline. p TheDepartmentargued,justasitdoeshere,thatcompliancewithTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo. \ 9502.01(VI)(D)(2)wasunnecessaryincircumstanceswheretheprisonerhadappealedthediscipline H  totheassistantcommissionerandultimatelytothecommissioner.Wedisagreedandheldthatthe 4 t DepartmentcouldnotsidesteptheplainrequirementsofitsownUniformDisciplinaryProcedures  ` byrelyingonprisonerinitiatedappealstoavoidTenn.CodeAnn.4124110(5)splainprohibition.  L  Piggv.Casteel,No.01A019807CH00384,1999WL166499,at*4(Tenn.Ct.App.Mar.29,  8  1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled).  $    Asfarastheappellaterecordshows,Mr.Hortonreceivedonlyanoralwarningashis   punishmentforbeingoutofplace.BecauseTenn.DeptPolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(2)doesnot   requireapprovalofthecommissionersdesigneepriortotheimpositionofanoralwarning,the   disciplinaryboardcouldissueanoralwarningtoMr.Hortonwithoutanyinvolvementbythe  commissionersdesignee.Accordingly,thetrialcourtproperlydismissedtheportionofMr. l Hortonspetitionchallengingtheproceduresrelatedtohisbeingoutofplacechargeforfailureto X stateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. D   ThepunishmentMr.Hortonreceivedforthedisrespectchargewasmoreseverethananoral \ warning.Accordingly,thedisciplinaryboardwasrequiredtoobtaintheapprovalofthe H commissionersdesigneebeforeimposingit.Theappellaterecordcontainsnoindicationthatthe 4 disciplinaryboardcompliedwithTenn.DeptPolicyNo.9502.01(VI)(D)(2)withregardtoMr.   Hortonsdisrespectcharge.Therefore,followingPiggv.Casteel,wefindthatMr.Hortonhasstated   aclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedwithregardtothedisrespectcharge.6 #  6        @dd) VI.     WeaffirmthetrialcourtsdecisiontodismisstheportionsofMr.Hortonspetitionforwrit h ofcommonlawcertiorarichallenginghisconvictionforbeingoutofplace.However,wevacatethe T  dismissaloftheportionofMr.Hortonspetitionrelatingtohisdisrespectconvictionandremandthe @!  casetothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Wetaxthecostsofthis ,"l! appealtotheStateofTennessee. #X"    `     h     _____________________________ &#&    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE