WPC H~p R' Wg+K+W&s*oI+!ΌFC2cET%m iZLIBXC+1Ñ.SA5t,O<7踃,z:)pk29 qzn nCX}{4nEs#%-$ Cٴ>?^;zE&+s>)ѪvYcrcz }5 ,;I1YǴYqD5~hO8 Y$D0C}Z/+qxz՛ö̿t;@ *:rߢ(̨-V*Xjf'dEI[(?S?MڃB$pDh[i[3G 4L0Ոsd,1Ui}O[zd1Ed6*a^3Y!)[(r A,A3lb#\ % UN# 0q UN G 1uJ z9 72  1=^ w`& 0DN0'24YEmo~ mb 0 B 0 D3K D-~ 0K ASI 0 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular  R$      1    _Weareawareofdecisionsapparentlycontradictingthepropositionthattheonlyproperrespondentsforwrits  ofcertioraritoreviewprisondisciplinaryboardsis_TDOC_.Seee.g.,Sealsv._Bowlen_,No.M199900997COAR3CV, t 2001WL840271,*35(Tenn.Ct.App.July26,2001);however,incaseswhereotherrespondents,suchasthe 8 disciplinaryboarditself,wereheldtobeproperlynamedinwritsofcertiorari,theprisonswheretheclaimsarosewere L staterunratherthanundercontractwithaprivateentityformanagement.Thus,insuchcases,peopleotherthanjusta  sole_TDOC_Ԁrepresentativehadauthoritytoaffectthelibertyinterestsofprisoners.3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) 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.wpti)(5hCEKQW]cioAutoList11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.e9+s Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0    R$      2    _Weneedonlydiscussthemeritsregardingtheissuanceofacommonlawwritofcertiorariinthematterbefore  us.In_Buford_,thisCourtclearlyheldthatstatutorywritsofcertiorariarenotavailableforreviewofproceedingstaken t byprisondisciplinaryboards._Buford_,1999WL1015672,at*4.j5+REL3|xU- -(|G2$ !.8[dd8         0   d(|3$ !.8[dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8[dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8[dd8     _  [8AXXdd8  @ ^ [INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#[^ #Ԉ &   ASSIGNEDONBRIEFSMAY24,2001 L XAX[ #[XXA#DAVID_NEVILLS_v.SOUTHCENTRALCORRECTIONAL J DISCIPLINARYBOARDXAX[   ^ @@ DirectAppealfromtheChanceryCourtforWayneCounty  ^ @@No.10490;TheHonorableRobertL.Holloway,Chancellor  J @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002324_COA_ԄR3CVFiledSeptember25,_2001_   AV) ` dE<` A      XAXXXAThisappealinvolvesthedenialofapetitionforwritofcertioraribroughtinchancerycourtbyastate  prisoner.Theprisonerrequestedreviewofactionsallegedlyinviolationofdueprocesstakenbya x prisondisciplinaryreviewboard.Thechancerycourtgrantedamotionforsummaryjudgmentin d favorofthedisciplinaryreviewboardandforthefollowingreasons,weaffirm. P #XAXXXA###[XXA#XAX[ Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  d   #[XAW#XAX.[AlanE.Highers,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichDavidR.Farmer,J.,andHolly < KirbyLillard,J.,joined. ( David_Nevills_,Clifton,TN,prose  TomAnderson,Jackson,TN,forAppellee   OPINION #[XXA%#XAX[ L"! #[XXA #XAX[  XAXXXA@FactsandProceduralHistory $$t#       Appellant,David_Nevills_,isaninmateinthelawfulcustodyoftheTennesseeDepartment %L!% ofCorrections( _TDOC_)andincarceratedattheSouthCentralCorrectionalFacility( South &8"& Central)inClifton,Tennessee.SouthCentralisoperatedbyCorrectionsCorporationofAmerica '$#' ( CCA),aprivateentityundercontractwith_TDOC_Ԁtomanagethefacility. ($( Ѐ     OnJune2,1999,Mr._Nevills_ԀwaschargedwithconductinviolationofTennessee *%* DepartmentofCorrectionsPolicy#9502.01.VI(E)(4)(a),otherwiseknownas SolicitationofStaff. +&+ Followingthecharges,Mr._Nevills_Ԁwasplacedinsegregationfortwodayspriortoahearingbefore p,', SouthCentralsDisciplinaryBoard.Duringhistimeinsegregation,Mr._Nevills_Ԁallegesthathe \-(- askedforacontinuanceofhisdisciplinaryhearingfortheopportunitytorequestexculpatory  witnessesandtoconferwithaninmateadvisor.Afterhavingthisrequestforcontinuancedenied,  theBoardconductedahearing.Asaresultofthehearing,theBoardmadearecommendationtoa  _TDOC_ԀliaisonthatMr._Nevills_Ԁbefoundguiltyoftheallegedinfraction.Consequently,the_TDOC_ t liaisonapprovedtherecommendationandconvictedMr._Nevills_Ԁoftheoffense. `   Followinghisconviction,Mr._Nevills_Ԁproperlyfollowedthepoliciesestablishedby_TDOC_ 8  forappealingdisciplinaryconvictions.However,onJune14,1999,JimRose,Assistant $ t Commissionerwith_TDOC_,affirmedtheconviction.Subsequently,theCommissionerof  ` Corrections,_Donal_ԀCampbell,alsoaffirmedtheconviction.  L    OnAugust13,1999,Mr._Nevills_ԀpetitionedtheChanceryCourtofWayneCountyfora $  commonlawandstatutorywritofcertiorari,namingtheBoardasrespondent,toreviewtheactions   takenbytheBoard.TheBoard,ledbyChairmanLeoV._Schachle_,filedananswerand,   subsequently,amotionforsummaryjudgmentallegingthattheBoardwasnottheproperrespondent   inthematter.Thechancerycourtgrantedthemotionforsummaryjudgmentandthisappeal   followed. p    `    `    @  @`  @  @  @h StandardofReview 4       Thechancerycourtsgrantofsummaryjudgmentisnotentitledtoapresumptionof  \ correctnessonappeal._McClung_Ԁv.DeltaSquareLtd.Partnership,937S.W.2d891,894(Tenn. H 1996).RatherwemustreviewdenovotodeterminewhethertherequirementsofTennesseeRule 4 ofCivilProcedure56havebeenmet.Masonv._Seaton_,942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).A   summaryjudgmentiswarrantedonlywhentherearenogenuine,materialfactualdisputeswith   regardtotheclaimordefenseassertedinthemotionandthemovingpartyisentitledtoajudgment  asamatteroflaw._Bain_Ԁv.Wells,936S.W.2d618,622(Tenn. 1997).Inmakingourdetermination,  wemusttakethestrongestviewoftheevidenceinfavorofthenonmovingparty,allowingall  reasonableinferencesinhisfavoranddiscardingallcountervailingevidence._Shadrick_Ԁv._Coker_, p 963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998)(citingByrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,21011(Tenn.1993)).  \    LawandAnalysis  $\"    0   (#(#     AlthoughMr._Nevills_proseappealfailedtospecificallydefinetheissuespresentedbefore %4!$ thiscourt,thefollowingtwoissuespertainingtohisclaimthatheisentitledtoawritofcertiorari & "% shouldbeaddressed: ' #&   1.WhetherMr._Nevills_Ԁnamedthecorrectrespondentinhispetitionforawritofcertiorari; )$( and *%)  l+&*  (5h83! !  2.WhethertheprotectionsaffordedbytheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenth  AmendmentoftheU.S.Constitutionareimplicatedunderthesecircumstances,warrantingissuance  ofacommonlaworstatutorywritofcertiorari.  Wewilladdresseachissueaccordingly. `   Withregardtothefirstissue,weagreewiththechancerycourtandholdthatMr._Nevills_ $ t failedtonamethecorrectrespondentinhispetitionforwritofcertiorari.TheTennesseeSupreme  ` CourthasheldthattheBoardatSouthCentralhasnoauthoritytoconvictorimposesanctionsupon  L  prisonersforviolationsofdisciplinaryrules.Mandelav.Campbell,978S.W.2d531,533(Tenn.  8  1998).InarrivingatitsconclusioninMandela,thesupremecourtrecognizedthatsection4124 $  110(5)ofTennesseeCodeAnnotatedprovidesinpertinentpart:   8  Nocontractforcorrectionalservicesshallauthorize,alloworimplyadelegationof   theauthorityorresponsibilityofthecommissionertoaprisonercontractorforany   ofthefollowing:...granting,denyingorrevokingsentencecredits;placingan p inmateunderlessrestrictivecustodyormorerestrictivecustody;ortakingany \ disciplinaryactions.H   Id.(citingTenn.CodeAnn.4124110(5)).WhiletheBoardwasproperlyconsideredacontractor  p ascontemplatedinthestatute,thesupremecourtruledthat_TDOC_Ԁhadnotimproperlydelegatedits  \ authority.UnderthepoliciesinplaceatSouthCentral,thecourtfoundthattheauthoritytoconvict H andimposesanctionsuponprisonersremainedwith_TDOC_.Id.;seealsoDavisv.Rose,No01A01 4 9610CH00494,1997WL83617,*23(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.28,1997).TheBoardwouldmerely   recommendpunishmentbasedontheBoardsfindingsandanauthorized_TDOC_Ԁrepresentative   wouldeitheracceptoramendtheBoardsrecommendationsaftertheirownreview.󀀀  Ѐ  BasedonMandela,thisCourthasconcludednumeroustimesthatwritsofcertiorari  stemmingfromallegedviolationsofrightsofprisonersatSouthCentralduringdisciplinaryhearings l mustbedirectedtowards_TDOC_ԀasopposedtotheBoardoritsmembers._ #  1      _ԀTurnerv.Campbell,15 X  S.W.3d466,468(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);seealsoWilsonv.S.Cent.Corr.FacilityDisciplinaryBd., D! No.M200000303COARMCV,2000WL1425228,at*56(Tenn.Ct.App.Sept.28,2000); 0"  _Bufordv.Tenn.DeptofCorr.,No.M199800157COAR3CV,1999WL1015672,at*5(Tenn. #l! Ct.App.Nov.10,1999).AsaptlystatedbytheHonorableBenCantrellofthisCourt,awritof $X" certiorari shouldbedirectedtothegovernmentalagencythatisresponsiblefortheactionsofwhich $D # thepetitionercomplains.Turner,14,S.W.3dat468.BecausetheBoardhasnoauthorityto_convict %0!$ orimposesanctionsuponaprisoner,itnecessarilyfollowsthatawritofcertioraritoreviewthe  Boardsactionswouldnotprovideanyrelieffromconvictionsorsanctionsactuallyimposedupon  theprisoner._TDOC_Ԁistheappropriategovernmentalagencythatshouldhavebeennamedas  respondent. t   Inhisbrief,Mr._Nevills_Ԁassertsthatdisputedfactsexistwhichshouldhaveprecludedthe L  chancerycourtfromgrantingamotionforsummaryjudgment.Mr._Nevills_Ԁstatesthathe hadnot 8  beenallowedorgiven[the]opportunitytodiscussadefensewith[his]inmateadvisor,orthe $ t opportunitytorequest[the]presenceofexculpatorywitnesses.HefurtherstatesthattheBoard  ` arbitrarilydeniedhisrequestedcontinuance.However,uponinspection,thesefacts,whentakenas  L  true,havenobearingontheproprietyofthesummaryjudgment.Asdiscussedabove,theBoardwas  8  notinapositiontodenyMr._Nevills_Ԁhislibertyinterests. $    JustastheSupremeCourtofTennesseerecognizedinMandela,wetoorecognizetheamount   ofinvolvementthattheBoardhasinthedisciplinaryprocessatSouthCentral.TheBoards   responsibilitiesincludeconductinghearings,reviewingtheevidence,andmakingrecommendations   to_TDOC_Ԁfordisciplinaryaction.However,wealsocitewithapprovaltheWilsoncourts p acknowledgmentofthefollowingpowersretainedbythe_TDOC_Ԁliaisonthroughouttheentire \ disciplinaryprocessatSouthCentral: H 8  theauthoritytoaffirmorrejectthesegregationofanyinmatependingdisciplinary  p action;toapprove(ordisapprove)ofanysanctionsimposedonaninmatewhopleads  \ guiltytoadisciplinaryoffense;tostayorsuspendtheimplementationofany H punishmentforupto60days;tostayanypunishmentpendingtheresultsofan 4 appeal;andtogetherwiththewarden,toreviewandapproveanyconfinementofan   inmateinpunitivesegregationformorethan30days.    eWilson,2000WL1425228,at*3(citationsomitted).Further,weagreewiththeWilsoncourtthat  the_TDOC_Ԁliaisonisnotmerelya rubberstampinplaceonlytoapproveactionstakenbytheBoard.  Id.Instead,the_TDOC_Ԁliaisonhasadutytotakean activeanddecisiveroleinthedisciplinary l process.Id.Accordingly,wherea_TDOC_Ԁliaisonfailsintheserespects,theBoard,asacomposition X  ofprivateemployees,cancreateliabilityforthestate.Thus,Mr._Nevills_petitionforwritofcertiorari D! improperlystatestheBoardasrespondent,asopposedto_TDOC_,andmustfailforthatreason. 0"  However,eveniftheBoardwerethecorrectrespondentinMr._Nevills_writofcertiorari,Mr._Nevills_ #l! appealwouldstillfailforthereasonsbelow. $X"   Withregardtothesecondissue,weholdthatMr._Nevills_Ԁfailstoallegeanyfactsregarding %0!$ hisconvictionwhichwouldtendtoshowadeprivationofalibertyinterestentitlinghimtoprotection &"%  undertheDueProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendmentoftheU.S.Constitution.Accordingly, '#& thechancerycourtwasnotinerrorforfailingtoissueacommonlaworstatutorywritofcertiorari._ #  2      _Ԁ      Itiswellsettledthatthescopeofreviewunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorariisvery  narrow.Reviewunderthewritislimitedtowhether"theinferiorboardortribunal(1)hasexceeded t itsjurisdiction,or(2)hasactedillegally,arbitrarily,orfraudulently."_McCallen_Ԁv.CityofMemphis, ` 786S.W.2d633,638(Tenn.1990);seealsoPowellv.ParoleEligibilityBd.,879S.W.2d871,873 L  (_Tenn.Ct.App_.1994).Theintrinsiccorrectnessofthedecisionbelowcannotbereviewedunderthe 8  writ.Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,956S.W.2d478(Tenn.1997).AsstatedinPowell,"itis $ t notthecorrectnessofthedecisionthatissubjecttojudicialreview,butthemannerinwhichthe  ` decisionisreached."Powell,879S.W.2dat873.Alowerboardortribunal'sdecisionissubjectto  L  judicialreviewunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorariifthelowerboardortribunal"actedin  8  violationofconstitutionalorstatutoryprovisionsorinexcessofitsownstatutoryauthority;has $  followedunlawfulprocedureorbeenguiltyofarbitraryorcapriciousaction;orhasactedwithout   materialevidencetosupportitsdecision."Wattsv.CivilServiceBd.,606S.W.2d274,277(Tenn.   1980).     Here,Mr._Nevills_Ԁseeksreviewoftheallegeddenialofdueprocessandnotthefinal p determinationofhisguilt.Mr._Nevills_ԀallegesthattheBoardviolatedhisdueprocessrightsby \ arbitrarilydenyingarequestedcontinuanceofhisdisciplinaryhearing,whichresultedinaninability H torequestexculpatorywitnessesandtoconferwithaninmateadvisor.Further,Mr._Nevills_Ԁclaims 4 theBoardfailedtoadequatelysummarizethereasonsforitsfindingsasrequiredby_TDOC_Ԁpolicy.  p Thus,becauseMr._Nevils_ԀpresentsaclaimthattheBoardviolatedhisconstitutionaldueprocessrights  \ ratherthanaclaimastotheintrinsiccorrectnessofthedecision,hisclaimcouldproperlyfallunder H thegambitofissuesavailableforreviewunderacommonlawwritofcertiorari.However,upon 4 analyzingMr._Nevills_claimthathewasdenieddueprocessoflaw,wefindhisargumentwithout   merit.     Wemustfirstaddressthenecessaryproceduralrequirementsforaconstitutionallyadequate  prisondisciplinaryhearing.TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthataprisonerretains  constitutionalrightsevenuponincarceration.However,the"fullpanoplyofrights"afforded l defendantsincriminalprosecutionsdoesnotextendtoprisonerssubjecttodisciplinaryproceedings. X  ЀWolffv.McDonnell,418U.S.539,556(1974).Minimumconstitutionalrequirementsinclude(1) D! writtennoticeofthechargesatleasttwenty-fourhourspriortothehearing;(2)anopportunityto 0"  presentwitnesseswhendoingsowouldnotbeundulyhazardoustoinstitutionalsafetyorcorrectional #l! goals;(3)animpartial_decisionmaker_;and(4)awrittenstatementbythefactfindersastothe $X" evidencerelieduponandthereasonsforthedisciplinaryaction.Id.at564-66.Aninmatedoesnot $D # havearighttoeitherretainedorappointedcounsel.Insituationswheretheinmateisilliterateorthe %0!$ issueishighlycomplex,however,theinmatemayseektheaidofanotherinmateorreceiveaidfrom &"% thestaff.Aninmatedoesnothavearighttoconfrontationorcross-examinationofwitnesses. '#& Ї  TheSupremeCourtlaterlimiteditsholdinginWolffbyfindingthattheimpositionofcertain  disciplinarysanctionsdoesnotcreatealibertyinterestentitlingaprisonertodueprocessprotections.  AninmateisentitledtothelimiteddueprocessrightsprovidedinWolffonlywhentheresulting  sanctionsimpose"atypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidents t ofprisonlife."_Sandin_Ԁv.Conner,515U.S.472,483-85(1995).Thus,_Sandin_focusesonthenature ` ofthedeprivationimposedupontheinmate.Courtshaveheldthatthefollowingpunishmentsdonot L  createprotectedlibertyinterestsunderthe_Sandin_standard:placementintendaysolitaryconfinement 8  withlossofsentencereductioncreditsforthattime,writtenandverbalwarnings,andconfiscation $ t ofpersonalproperty,Armstrongv.Tenn._Dept_ԀofCorr.,No.M200002328COAR3CV,2001WL  ` 618603(Tenn.Ct.App.June7,2001);placementinthirtydaysegregatedconfinement,placement  L  infivedaysegregatedconfinementsuspendedforsixtydays,lossofsixmonthsofvisitation  8  privileges,andpaymentforadrugscreen,_Dotson_Ԁv._TDOC_,No.01A01-9811-CV-00596,1999WL $  430405,at*1(_Tenn.Ct.App_.June29,1999);transfertoamoresevereprisonfacility,Mackv.Jones,   No.03A01-9806-CV-00215,1999WL172645,at*3(_Tenn.Ct.App_.Mar.24,1999);removalfrom   aprisonjob,_Blackmon_Ԁv.Campbell,No.01A01-9807-CH-00361,1999WL85518,at*1   (_Tenn.Ct.App_.Feb.23,1999);andplacementon_lockdown_,Hawkinsv._Sundquist_,No.   01A01-9803-CH-00164,1999WL22386,at*1(_Tenn.Ct.App_.Jan.21,1999). p   Here,Mr._Nevills_Ԁhasfailedtoallege,eitheratthetrialorappellatelevel,thatatypicaland H significanthardshipsinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsofprisonlifewereimposeduponhim.In 4 Mr._Nevills_originalcomplaintinchancerycourt,herequestedreimbursementofa$5.00 guiltyfee.  p ЀFurther,Mr._Nevills_ԀspenttwodaysinsegregationpendinghishearingbeforetheBoard.However,  \ consistentwithourprioropinions,thesesanctionsfallshortoftheimpositionofatypicaland H significanthardshipsinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsofprisonlife.Thus,Mr._Nevills_Ԁfailedto 4 showhislibertyinterestswereatstakeandthathewasentitledtoanyofthelimiteddueprocessrights   providedtoprisonersinWolff.Thus,denialofthewritofcertioraribythechancerycourtwas   proper.     Conclusion         Fortheforegoingreasons,thedecisionofthechancerycourtisaffirmed.Costsofthisappeal X  aretaxedagainsttheAppellant,David_Nevills_,forwhichexecutionmayissueifnecessary.#XAXXXA` ##[XXA2 #XAX[ D!      m     u   ___________________________________ $D #      m     u   ALANE.HIGHERS,JUDGE