WPCI "3ݰ:#nc=UΞh$e+4T=/o,7P1R^t c:&oQnk~ mvaΛ?aS.Y3X .$qP 0e[ Rb A "*M%ʽA晟@lPvqtFд M&QG ls`cYY#2)®*VsoVCId-yY/핇7fIM䥍B]?i {Pқ's/2ݐ 7$&ErU˿g{c޵Ҵ`<9NI0g2?7uC=:W;c^fa!}]4(<[Q~]pmuR\tNB6.0\+F$\ALY+ZYR5m\]D`#@U N %W 0:] UN ^ w 4   m >1 1  oNxbzz 0D 0Exx2z 0}; 05 0U 0? 0" 0 0 0_ 0! 0! 0f" 0# 0# 0$ 0P% 0% 0& 0E' 0' 0u( 0) 0) 0* 0B+ 0+ 0, 0.- 0- 0X.U>. 0> / 0^/ 0V0 081 02 02 03 04 0z5 02L6 0~6 0:z7 0Y7 0_ 8 0 l8 0v9 0: B*< D/(= D+W= 0= D/? 0? 0@ 06.A 0dA 0:lB BB 0^B 0<!C 1e]CU6CU*C 1u"D 72DDgE\\IB01S01\CLERK1NAS,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX($USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regular|T/ o=/:i+003|xU DeberrySandin S.CtPetrosScarbrough BMCX WTSPHenning SPNDDeptHardinBowlen COABusbee L.EdFrugePeralesBirmanGoodloeDep'tre-weighGov'tTraughberBufordPendletonHickmant]estimonyestimonyProflCiprofloxacinE.D.N.Y.PshipGinsburgRhodenJeffriesdispositiveMullikinMcElwaneyEntmanIcard TimmFurenf]air  R$USUS.,      3  XX  _Mr.Ivy,likeotherprisoners,alsoassertedclaimsforallegedviolationsofTenn.CodeAnn.411102(c),  411103,and4121404(1997).Wehavealreadydeterminedinothercasesthatclaimedviolationsofthesestatutes  donotstateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Pendletonv.Mills,73S.W.3dat122(Tenn.CodeAnn.411 H 103);Thompsonv.State,No.02A019705BC00102,1998WL70645,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.23,1998)(NoTenn.  L R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(Tenn.CodeAnn.4121404).ThesamerationaleappliestodeparturesfromTenn.  CodeAnn.411102(c).Accordingly,weaffirmthedismissalofMr.IvysclaimsbasedonTenn.CodeAnn.411  102(c),411103,and4121404.- -(#$  0  0AA.Normal  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5   ( R$USUS.,      4  XX  _ԀTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(c)(5)&(6)(2001);Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.at566,94  S.Ct.at2979. R$USUS.,      5  XX  _Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.501.02(VI)(E)(2)(k)(5).<AA:Definition T  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5    R$USUS.,      1  XX  _Mr.Ivyspetitionrequestedbothacommonlawandstatutorywritofcertiorari.Acommonlawwritof  certiorariistheonlyvehicleforobtainingjudicialreviewofprisondisciplinaryactions.Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3d  632,634n.1(Tenn.Ct.App.2001);Rhodenv.StateDeptofCorr.,984S.W.2d955,956(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).For H thepurposeofthisopinion,wewillconsiderMr.Ivyspetitionsolelyasapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari.<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5 + R$USUS.,      2  XX  _Tenn.R.Civ.P.7.02requiresthatallmotionstothecourt shallbemadeinwriting,shallstatewith  particularitythegroundstherefor,andshallsetforththerelieforordersought.TheDepartmentsmotioninthiscase,  likesomanysimilarmotionsfiledinthepast,didnotsatisfyTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02'sparticularityrequirement.E.g., H Willisv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,113S.W.3dat709;Jeffriesv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,108S.W.3d862,867n.2  L (Tenn.Ct.App.2002);Pendletonv.Mills,73S.W.3d115,121(Tenn.Ct.App.2001).*+ (_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 ,  *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   &&& $_   x 23   x   \  `&Times New Roman86Definition(hh&H1  5+ ` hp x 5      5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H2  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H3  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H4  5+ ` hp x 5 XXX 5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H5  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  (]]&H6  5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 5  2DD0Address  5+ ` hp x 55+ ` hp x 5  8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKZ<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KZ<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS <:Preformatted  /%  ,Kk %#/KZ<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/  <:zBottom of 7M(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?[%2A`Arial?  S:\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X75+ ` hp x 5  &  d dL)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7P(X7    5+ ` hp x 5?[%2A`Arial?  S:\  `&Times New RomanS7N(X75+ ` hp x 5  L)2dxd0KS.SampleKZ<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS(:G2$ !USUS.,        0  XX0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKZ<6X9`(Courier NewKS:\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable d: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ()*+,-./ 35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<6X9`(Courier New%2A`Arial3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)\i) R$USUS.,      6  XX  _Robinsonv.Clement,65S.W.3dat635. ] R$USUS.,      7  XX  _Mr.IvyattachedtohiscomplaintanuncertifiedcopyoftheDisciplinaryReportHearingSummary.Despite  therequirementinTenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.501.02(VI)(E)(2)(k)(5)thattheboardsummarizeontheDisciplinary  ReportHearingSummarythe specificevidencereliedupontosupportitsfindingthattheprisonercommitteda H disciplinaryoffense,thesummarystatesonlythattheboardrelieduponthe TestimonyofReportingOfficial&  L Witness.SimplyidentifyingthewitnessesonwhosetestimonytheboardreliesdoesnotcomplywithTenn.DeptCorr.  PolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(2)(k)(5).AnotherdocumentattachedtoMr.Ivyspetitiontitled ADDENDUMTO  DISCIPLINARYAPPEALisnotappropriatelyidentifiedandbearsinsufficientevidenceofreliabilitytobegivenmuch, X ifany,weight. !USUS.,  _TRX3'Avery 3259 Embossed NoteX3' Letter3'Avery 5160 Address NoteX3'LetterTHXLXXX  VXXL8LXXdd8      @ #XLXV#AXXLINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#XLXA#VXXLԈ &   AssignedonBriefFebruary22,2002  L  @  @  @  @  @ #XLXV2# VXXLPAULIVYv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFCORRECTION#XLXV#   J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.001673IICarolL.McCoy,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE< ` A    @@TTNo.M200101219_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober20,2003   AV) ` dE<` A      ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweenaprisonerandtheDepartmentofCorrectionregardinga   disciplinaryproceedingattheDeberrySpecialNeedsFacilityinDavidsonCounty.Theprisoner   filedapetitionforwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCountyallegingthe t disciplinaryboardactedillegally,arbitrarily,andvindictivelybyviolatingtheDepartmentsUniform ` DisciplinaryProcedureswhenitdisciplinedhimforattemptedescape.TheDepartmentfiledaTenn. L R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismiss,andthetrialcourt,citingSandinv.Conner,512U.S.472,115 8x S.Ct.2293(1995),dismissedthepetition.Theprisonerhasappealed.Wehavedeterminedthatthe $d orderdismissingtheprisonerspetitionshouldbereversedinpartandthatthecaseshouldbe P remandedforfurtherconsiderationinlightofWillisv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,113S.W.3d706 < (Tenn.2003). (  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmedinPart  andReversedinPart     WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWJ XXLILLIAM#XLX J #ԀB.Cainand  PJ XXLATRICIA#XLX Ji #ԀJ.CJ XXLOTTRELL#XLX J #,JJ.,joined. p PaulIvy,MountainCity,Tennessee,ProSe. H   PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andJ.Brad  "`" Scarbrough,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.  #L#   OPINION  $$!%   @) I.  &"'   PaulIvyiscurrentlyincarceratedattheBrushyMountainCorrectionalComplex.The ($) incidentthatprecipitatedthisappealoccurredonFebruary16,2000,whenhewashousedattheWest )%* TennesseeStatePenitentiary.AcorrectionsofficeraccusedMr.Ivyofattemptingtoescapewhile l*&+ beingtransportedbyprisonbustotheDeberrySpecialNeedsFacilityformedicaltreatment.A X+', threememberdisciplinaryboardconvenedonFebruary22,2000atDeberryandfoundMr.Ivyguilty D,(- ofattemptedescape.Hispunishmentincludedafivedollarfine,thirtydaysinpunitivesegregation, 0-p). prolongedadministrativesegregation,atwelvemonthreductionofsentencecredits,andatwoyear .\*/ denialofcertificationforaparolehearing. /H+0 _ԇ  Afterexhaustinghisadministrativeappeals,Mr.Ivyfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariin  theChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty. #  1      ׀Heassertedthattheprisondisciplinaryboardandothers  hadactedillegally,arbitrarily,andvindictivelybyviolatingstatelaw,theDepartmentofCorrections  UniformDisciplinaryProcedures,andhisdueprocessrights.Morespecifically,Mr.Ivyalleged(1)  thatthedisciplinaryboardhadfailedtosummarizetheexculpatoryevidenceintheDisciplinary p ReportHearingSummary,(2)thattheDisciplinaryBoardfalsifiedthetestimonyatthehearingon \ theDisciplinaryReportHearingSummary,and(3)thattheDepartmentfailedtoprovethathehad H  attemptedtoescape. 4 t   InsteadoffilingtheofficialrecordofMr.Ivysdisciplinaryproceedings,theDepartment  L  fileda motiontodismissorforsummaryjudgmentthatfailedtocomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.  8  7.02. #  2      ׀Thetrialcourt,relyinginlargeparton#XLXXXL#Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.472,115S.Ct.2293  $  (1995),foundthatMr.Ivyhadfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegrantedbecausethe   punishmenthereceiveddidnotimposean atypicalandsignificanthardshipinrelationtothe   incidentsofnormalprisonlife.<  #  3      ׀Mr.Ivynowappealstothiscourt.    @)II.   @  TheAbsenceofaRecordofthePrisonDisciplinaryProceedings  l   Onceagainwearebeingaskedtoreviewthedenialofapetitionforcommonlawwritof D certiorarithatoccurredbeforetheDepartmenthadfiledacompleterecordofthedisciplinaryhearing 0p atissue.Wearelefttoconsidertheissueswithonlytheportionsoftherecordthathavebeenfiled \ bytheprisoner.Thesepapersarenotadequate,orevenappropriate,substitutesfortheofficial H record.Noneofthedocumentsarecertified;manybearlittleindiciaofauthenticity;andtheyarenot 4 accompaniedbyacertificationthattheyarethecompleterecordofthedisciplinaryproceedingat   issue.        Wehavecommentedatsomelengthinprioropinionsaboutthefollyofthispracticeandthe   wasteinjudicialtimeandresourcesitcauses.Wehavealsoexplainedrepeatedlywhyfilinga  completerecordofthedisciplinaryproceedingsisthesimplestandmostprocedurallycorrectway  toresolvefactualissuesaboutwhathappenedatthedisciplinaryhearing.Asbestwecandetermine,  ourcommentshavegoneunheeded.PerhapstheDepartmentwillrethinkthisstrategynowthatthe p TennesseeSupremeCourthasfileditsWillisv.TennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionopinion. \ @^^( III.  4 t @hh TheStandardofReview   `   Ourchoiceoftheappropriatestandardofreviewforthisappealisinfluencedbythe  8  proceduralpostureofthecasewhenthetrialcourtdismissedMr.Ivyspetition.Theimprecisionof  $  theDepartmentsdispositivemotionandthetrialcourtsorderhavecloudedthenatureofthetrial   courtsdecision.Accordingly,wemustreviewtherecordtodeterminewhatthetrialcourtdid.     TheDepartmentrespondedtoMr.Ivyspetitionbyfilinga motiontodismissorfor   summaryjudgment.WhytheDepartmentchosetoseekalternativereliefpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.  P.12.02(6)andTenn.R.Civ.P.56isnotreadilyapparent,especiallybecausetheDepartments l motionfailedtocomplywithTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02andbecausetheDepartmentsmemorandumof X lawthataccompanieditsmotionwasnotincludedintheappellaterecordinaccordancewithTenn. D R.App.P.24(a).Thetrialcourtcompoundedtheproblembyfailingtosetoutinitsorder 0p dismissingMr.IvyspetitionwhetheritwasproceedingunderTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)orTenn. \ R.Civ.P.56. H   ThedistinctionbetweenTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)dispositionsandTenn.R.Civ.P.56   dispositionsisfarfromacademicwhenitcomestoselectingastandardofreview.Appellatecourts   reviewordersgrantingTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionstodismissusingstandardsfardifferent  fromthoseusedtoreviewordersgrantingsummaryjudgments.Therefore,determiningtheexact  natureofthetrialcourtsorderbeingreviewedmatters.    Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionschallengethelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint.Givens h v.Mullikinexrel.EstateofMcElwaney,75S.W.3d383,406(Tenn.2002).Thesemotionsrequire T  thecourttofocussolelyonthecomplaint.Mitchellv.Campbell,88S.W.3d561,564(Tenn.Ct. @!  App.2002).Onoccasion,however,courtsareaskedtoconsidermattersotherthanthecomplaint ,"l! inthecontextofaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion.Ifthetrialcourtconsidersmattersotherthan #X" thecomplaint,Tenn.R.Civ.P.12.02requiresthatthemotiontodismissbetreatedforallpurposes $D # asaTenn.R.Civ.P.56motionforsummaryjudgment.InthewordsofTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02: $0!$ 8  8`   If,onamotionassertingthedefensenumbered(6)todismissfor &#& failuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,matters '#' outsidethepleadingarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythecourt, ($( themotionshallbetreatedasoneforsummaryjudgmentand )%) disposedofasprovidedinRule56,andallpartiesshallbegiven x*&* reasonableopportunitytopresentallmaterialmadepertinenttosuch d+'+ amotionbyRule56.P,(,` x` x  <-|)- InlightoftheconversionfeatureinTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6),amotioncannotbebothaTenn.R.  Civ.P.12.02(6)motionandaTenn.R.Civ.P.56motionwithregardtothesameground.Itmust  beoneortheother.Accordingly,ourselectionoftheappropriatestandardofreviewforthisappeal  boilsdowntodeterminingwhether mattersoutsidethepleadingwerepresentedtoandnot  excludedbythetrialcourtinthiscase. p   Asfarastherecordshows,theDepartmentdidnotsubmitanyevidentiarymaterialsto H  supportits motiontodismissorforsummaryjudgment.Mr.Ivyappendedanumberofexhibits 4 t tohiscomplaint,andthuswemustdecidewhethertheseexhibitsshouldbeconsideredtobe matters  ` outsidethepleadingforthepurposeofTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02.Exhibitsattachedtopleadingsare  L  consideredtobepartofthepleadings.Tenn.R.Civ.P.10.03;HMFTrustv.BankersTrustCo.,827  8  S.W.2d296,298(Tenn.Ct.App.1991);Powellv.Barnard,20Tenn.App.31,34,95S.W.2d57,  $  59(1936).Therefore,courtsdisposingofaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionmayconsiderexhibits   attachedtoacomplaintwithoutconvertingthemotiontoamotionforsummaryjudgment.   Thompsonv.IllinoisDeptofProflRegulation,300F.3d750,753(7thCir.2002);Inre   CiprofloxacinHydrochlorideAntitrustLitigation,261F.Supp.2d188,198(E.D.N.Y.2003);Sparks   v.AllstateIns.Co.,98F.Supp.2d933,935(W.D.Tenn.2000);GovernorsClub,Inc.v.Governors  ClubLtd.Pship,567S.E.2d781,785(N.C.Ct.App.2002). l   Inlightofthefactthattherecordcontainsno mattersoutsideofMr.Ivyspleadings,the D Departmentsmotion,eventhoughitisstatedinthealternative,mustbereviewedasaTenn.R.Civ. 0p P.12.02(6)motion.Accordingly,themotionadmitsthetruthofalltherelevantandmaterialfactual \ allegationsinMr.Ivyscomplaint.Davisv.TheTennessean,83S.W.3d125,127(Tenn.Ct.App. H 2001);Pendletonv.Mills,73S.W.3dat120.WemustconstruethecomplaintliberallyinMr.Ivys 4 favorbytakingallthefactualallegationsinthecomplaintastrue,Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945   S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997),andbygivingMr.Ivythebenefitofalltheinferencesthatcanbe   reasonablydrawnfromthepleadedfacts.RobertBanks,Jr.&JuneF.Entman,Tennessee  CivilProcedure56(g),at254(1999).Wemustlikewisereviewthetrialcourt'slegal  conclusionsregardingtheadequacyofthecomplaintwithoutapresumptionofcorrectness.Bellex  rel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,Furen&Ginsburg,P.A.,986S.W.2d550,554(Tenn. | 1999);Steinv.DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2dat716. h @dd) IV.  @!  @ TheClaimsinMr.IvysPetition  ,"l!   Sandinv.Connerisnolongeraninsurmountablebarriertoprisonersseekingjudicialreview $D # ofprisondisciplinaryproceedings.TheTennesseeSupremeCourthasnowheldthatprisonerswho $0!$ fileapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariseekingreviewofaprisondisciplinaryproceeding %"% stateaclaimthatwillsurviveamotiontodismissiftheyallege factsdemonstratingthatthe &#& disciplinaryboardfailedtofollowtheUniformDisciplinaryProceduresand[that]thisfailure '#' substantiallyprejudiced...[them].Willisv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,113S.W.3dat713.This ($( decisionappliestoallcasespendingonappealwhenitwasfiled,andaccordingly,wewillreview )%) Mr.IvyspetitionusingtheWillisstandard. x*&*   P,(,   OneofMr.Ivysthreeallegationsclearlyfailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbe   granted.HeassertsthattheDepartmentviolatedhisdueprocessrightsanditsUniformDisciplinary  ProceduresbyfailingtosummarizehisexculpatoryevidenceontheDisciplinaryReportHearing  Summary.TheDepartmentssoleobligationistorecordonthesummarytheevidencereliedupon  aswellas detailedreasonsforthe...decision.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.501.02(VI)(E) p (2)(k)(5)(2001);Wolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,56465,94S.Ct.2963,2979(1974).While \ prisonershavealimitedrighttopresentexculpatoryevidenceduringdisciplinaryhearings, #  4      ׀they H  havenoright,eitherconstitutionalorotherwise,tohaveexculpatoryevidencesummarizedinthe 4 t DisciplinaryReportHearingSummary.  `   Mr.Ivyalsoallegesthatthedisciplinaryboardintentionallyfalsifiedthetestimonyofthe  8  witnessesinitssummaryoftheevidenceitrelieduponindecidingthathehadattemptedtoescape.  $  Thisallegation,iftrue,makesoutaviolationoftheDepartmentspoliciesthatwouldwarrantrelief   pursuanttoacommonlawwritofcertiorari.Inadditiontothepolicyexpresslyrequiringthe   chairpersonorhearingofficertorecordthe detailedreasonsfortheboardsdecisionandto   summarize theevidencewhichledtothedecision, #  5      ׀theDepartmentsUniformDisciplinary   ProceduresrequiretheDepartmenttoconduct [f]airandimpartialdisciplinaryproceedings...  againstinmateschargedwithdisciplinaryinfractions.Tenn.DeptCorr.PolicyNo.502.01(V) l (2001).Consideringbothpoliciestogether,theDepartmenthasanobligationtoprovideaccurate X andspecificreasonsforitsdecisions.FalsifyingtheevidencesummarizedontheDisciplinary D ReportHearingSummarynotonlyviolatestheDepartmentspoliciesbutalsounderminesthe 0p fundamentalfairnessofthedisciplinaryhearingandtheefficacyofjudicialreviewofprison \ disciplinarydecisions. H   Finally,Mr.IvyallegesthattheboardviolatedtheDepartmentspoliciesbyconvictinghim   ofattemptedescapewithoutprovingthathehadattemptedtoescape.Whileacommonlawwritof   certioraridoesnotprovideavehicleforreweighingtheevidenceorotherwiseinquiringintothe  intrinsiccorrectnessofthedisciplinaryboardsdecision,^ #  6      ׀theboardundoubtedlyactsarbitrarilyand  capriciouslyifitdecidestodisciplineaprisonerwithoutproofthatheorshehascommitteda  disciplinaryoffense.Accordingly,aprisonerseekingjudicialreliefthroughacommonlawwritof | certiorarimaybeentitledtoreliefifheorshecandemonstratethattheboardheardnoevidenceupon h whichtobaseitsdisciplinarydecision. T    Astherecordpresentlystands,therecordcontainsnoevidencetocontradicttheallegations ,"l! inMr.IvyspetitionthattheDepartmentproducednoevidencethathehadattemptedtoescape.The #X"  Departmentdidnotfileanofficialrecordofthedisciplinaryproceeding,andthedocumentsattached $D # toMr.IvyspetitionprovidetheDepartmentnosupport._ #  7      ׀Accordingly,Mr.Ivysallegationthathe   wasconvictedofattemptingtoescapewithoutanyevidencestatesaclaimuponwhichrelief  pursuanttoacommonlawwritofcertiorarimaybegranted.  @) V.  p   WeaffirmthedismissalofMr.Ivysclaimregardingthesummaryofhisexculpatory H  evidenceandreversetheremainderoftheordergrantingtheDepartmentsTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6) 4 t motion.ThecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwithWillisv.  ` TennesseeDeptofCorr.andthisopinion.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtotheStateofTennessee.  L     `     h     _____________________________      `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,J.