WPC5t  Ws1W8Y )oUuH(OX">dvķ꿌b\Hr֊uccW'Pb +ڪ0k a)|W聦L(q{ L`l7:)E,ƃ^FZ_y5cH[ \DNh3TNh"LSGэ:%I:-1}#]$`J^G I]AаhWW8vJ]J$kʕ[4b!Vi JܬvW1Be cĉ#C<7mȟBҹImf@WnI&< /ݔ1׽a 4*`/Ɏ8센Aɻ5 w-1kpȽvRo10 b\ ZNijA oEE6巤=Z|S{UG> 0n 0< D+0 A[  ,E % 0X 0 0 0( AQ E!b F"R" BV& 0Cs&b& 0U+ 0m+ 0P,b- 0w. 06/6/ 0/ 00 0O1 01 02 0\3 0-4 04 05 046 06p7B/?/?/?/?/?/?/?/?qAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqAqA 0'D B-/E B\EyE 0E##FU$NGGM2H(6HN^H^ `HwlH4pHH mH 0HH 02I 0I 0J 0OK 0K 0L 0MM 0M 0N 0O 1UO 1uO 72iPPPJcUcUSVKXKYg\K}]m^G5`J|a!bbfeMgMgmno[q\  `&Times New Roman'  S Scott0S Scott .   <:Default ParaXXX<:Footnote Ref'dxd&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKK  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      2  `XXH  _Brownv.State,No.01C019708CR00363,1999WL610060,at*1(Tenn._Crim_.App.Feb.10,1999),perm.  app.denied(Tenn.July12,1999). " Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      4  `XXH  _Tennessee_Dept_ԀofCorr.PolicyNo.501.04permits inmatelegal_helpers_Ԁwhohavebeenapprovedbythe  _institutions_Ԁwardentoassistotherinmatesinpreparinglegalmaterials.  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      1  `XXH  __Pendleton_Ԁv.State,No.01C019604CR00158,1997WL59501,at*1(Tenn._Crim_.App.Feb.13,1997),  perm.app.denied(Tenn.Oct.13,1997). CORDELLPENDLETONGaydenRickyRiverbendCrodypauperisAEDPAEyvonne a]sSundquistIcard TimmFurenGinsburgHardinKaylorGuentherNatlEntman tledFrugePeralesBirmanGoodloeShadrickCoker BelkObionconclusoryCawoodMcCarleyAss'nMilomPenleySeaton HCAServs HousShabazzSomersThurmanCoughlinCundyCroceS.D.N.YSantoroS.D.N.Y.N.D.N.Y.Spicerminimus MfrsGromanManlapanU.S.C.C.A.N.PedrazaChurnerDeptCorrsPrintzTafflinTelecommLorillardEgelhoffDillinghamCipolloneLiggettBurson GadeAssnLeTellierProfillMedtronic LohrMcClendonFennert]hispreemptoryHowlettFrankellFelderFontenotGounis S.W.CasteelVaade TDOC CoeCollierville L.L.Bracey CasGovtMX  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      3  `XXH  _Mr.BrowndidnotdiscloseeitherBrownv.Crody,21F.3d427(6thCir.1994)orBrownv.Carpenter,889  F.Supp.1028(W.D.Tenn.1995)ashewasrequiredtodobyTenn.CodeAnn.4121805(a)(1)(1997).HadMr. o BrownfiledthiscomplaintinformapauperisonorafterApril11,2001,itwouldhavebeensubjecttosummarydismissal .~ uponashowingthatthreeormoreofhispriorcomplaintsweredismissedonthegroundthattheywerefrivolous, = malicious,orfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Tenn.CodeAnn.4121807(c),asamendedby  ActofApr.2,2001,ch.76,2(c),2001Tenn.Pub.Acts___.(2~$ K !..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH  ݃ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(2~$ K !..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH  (2~$ K !..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH  ($C<< c ; Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      6  `XXH  _ThedraftMr.Brownhadpreparedappearedtobeaddressedtothelibrarian.- -  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      7  `XXH  _Tenn.R.Civ.P.7.02(1)requiresthatmotionsmust statewithparticularitythegroundstherefor.Wesurmise  thattheOfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralmayhavearticulatedaspecificreasonorreasonswhyCorporalMillswasentitled o toajudgmentasamatteroflawinamemorandumoflawaccompanyingitsmotion.However,thismemorandum,by .~ operationofTenn.R.App.P.24(a),isnotapartoftheappellaterecord.Sufficeittosaythatarticulatingadefensein = amemorandumaccompanyingamotiondoesnotamounttocompliancewithTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02(1).Robinsonv.  Clement,M200100365COAR3CV,2001WL965092,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Aug.27,2001). d($     X Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      8  `XXH  _Mr.BrownsgrievancehadbeenfullyresolvedforoverthreeweeksbythetimetheAttorneyGeneralfiled  itsmotionandbyalmostoneweekwhenSergeantStaplessignedheraffidavit.WhilethestatementinSergeantStapless o affidavitthat [a]sofAugust1,2000,thegrievancehasnotbeenfullyresolvedistechnicallycorrect,somequestion .~ existsconcerningwhetherSergeantStaplesknewwhensheexecutedtheaffidavitthatAssistantCommissionerRose = haddeniedMr.BrownsappealfromthewardensdismissalofhisgrievanceonAugust4,2000.Forthepurposeofthis  opinion,wewillpresumethatSergeantStapleswasunawareofAssistantCommissionerRosesactionandthatshefilled k outheraffidavitingoodfaith.*+ (_2623  ..*G+G (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ../%` ` hp x /   *8+8 (_24  ," hp x ,23  ..," hp x ,   X Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      5  `XXH  _AntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996,Pub.L.104132,110Stat.852(1996)asamended.*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   Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      10  `XXH  _Prisonershaveareasonablerightofaccesstothecourts.Johnsonv.Avery,393U.S.483,485,89S.Ct.747,  749(1969).Thisrightincludestherighttoreceivelegaladvicefromotherprisonersonlywhenitisanecessary means o forensuringareasonablyadequateopportunitytopresentclaimedviolationsoffundamentalconstitutionalrightstothe .~ courts.Shawv.Murphy,532U.S.223,___n.3,121S.Ct.1475,1480n.3(2001);Boundsv.Smith,430U.S.817,825, = 97S.Ct.1491,1496(1977).Inordertomakeoutaclaimfordenialofaccesstocourt,aprisonermustdemonstratethat  theallegedobstructiveconductactuallyhinderedhisorhereffortstopresentalegalclaimtothecourt.Lewisv.Casey, k 518U.S.343,350,116S.Ct.2174,2179(1996). * z   WhilethepapersfiledbyMessrs.BrownandPendletonarefarfromclear,theyappeartoallegethatbothMr.   BrownandMr.PendletonwereplanningtochallengetheconstitutionalityoftheAEDPA.BecausetheAttorneyGeneral g   hasnotchallengedtheseallegations,wemusttakethemastrueforthepurposeofconsideringthesummaryjudgment & v  motion.Thus,forthepurposeofthisopinion,wewillassumethatMessrs.BrownandPendletonhavearticulateda  5  denialofaccesstocourtclaim.Ouropinion,however,shouldnotbeconstruedasdeterminingthattheyhave    establishedaprimafaciecasethatCorporalMillssconductinterferedwiththeiraccesstothecourts. 8 Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      24  `XXH  _42U.S.C.1988(a)(1994)incorporates thecommonlaw,asmodifiedandchangedbytheconstitutionand  statutesofthestatewhereinthecourthavingjurisdiction...isheld,sofarasthesameisnotinconsistentwiththe o ConstitutionandlawsoftheUnitedStates....  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      23  `XXH  _Stateshaveconcurrentjurisdictionwiththefederalcourtstoenforcetherightscreatedbyfederallaw.Charles  DowdBoxCo.v.Courtney,368U.S.502,50708,82S.Ct.519,52223(1962);Watsonv.ClevelandChairCo.,789 o S.W.2dat542.Thisprinciplespecificallyappliesto42U.S.C.1983actions.Polingv.Goins,713S.W.2d305,307 .~ (Tenn.1986).(G2f$ K !..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH        0  `XXH)Hairline d  d#|x(r $..      MXlXXMXXlXXMXlHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular k2+s B+ eHU*)) (_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   $359=AEIMQ1111111113#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)di)  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      9  `XXH  _Thesortofconductthatwouldbeactionableunder42U.S.C.1983wouldbemakingracialslurs,  accompaniedbydrawingaweaponandthreateningtoshootaprisoner.E.g.,_Northington_Ԁv.Jackson,973F.2d1518, o 1524(10thCir.1992)(lawenforcementofficersheldapistoltoaprisonersheadandthreatenedtokillhim);_Wisniewski_ .~ v._Kennard_,901F.2d1276,1277(5thCir.1990)(a_correcions_Ԁofficerplacedarevolverinaprisonersmouthand = threatenedtoblowtheprisonersheadoff);Burtonv._Livingston_,791F.2d97,100(8thCir.1986)(acorrectionsofficer  drewhisweapon,maderacialepithets,andthreatenedtoshootanAfricanAmericanprisonerintheback). @ Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      11  `XXH  _S.Rep.No.96416,at1(1980),reprintedin1980U.S.C.C.A.N.787,788. I Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      12  `XXH  _S.Rep.No.96416,at2,19(1980),reprintedin1980U.S.C.C.A.N.787,789,800. A Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      13  `XXH  _S.Rep.No.96416,at34(1980),reprintedin1980U.S.C.C.A.N.787,816.  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      16  `XXH  _U.S.Const.art.VI,cl.2provides: ThisConstitution,andtheLawsoftheUnitedStateswhichshallbemade  inPursuancethereof;andallTreatiesmade,orwhichshallbemade,undertheAuthorityoftheUnitedStates,shallbe o thesupremeLawoftheland;andtheJudgesofeveryStateshallbeboundthereby,anyThingintheConstitutionorlaws .~ ofanystatetotheContrarynotwithstanding. ] Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      19  `XXH  _Likewise,theCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersonsActdidnotcontainanexpresspreemptionprovision. A Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      14  `XXH  _S.Rep.No.96416,at34(1980),reprintedin1980U.S.C.C.A.N.787,816. c Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      15  `XXH  _ActofApril24,1996,ch.913,1,1996Tenn.Pub.Acts569,571,codifiedasTenn.CodeAnn.4121806. = Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      17  `XXH  _Thistypeofimpliedpreemptioniscommonlyreferredtoasfieldpreemption. @ Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      18  `XXH  _Thistypeofimpliedpreemptioniscommonlyreferredtoasconflictpreemption.  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      22  `XXH  _Thelegislativehistoryregardingthe_Congresss_Ԁdecisionin1994toincreasethestayperiodin42U.S.C.  1997e(a)(1)from90to180dayslikewisefailstoreflectanyintentonthe_Congresss_Ԁparttoapplythelimitedexhaustion o requirementto42U.S.C.1983suitsfiledinstatecourts.ViolentCrimeControlandLawEnforcementActof1994, .~ Pub.L.103322,20416(a)(1)(A),108Stat.1796,183334. \ Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      20  `XXH  _S.Rep.96416,at34(1980),reprintedin1980_U.S.C.C.A.N._Ԁ787,816.  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      25  `XXH  _WehavealsodeterminedthattheAttorneyGeneralsrelianceonSweattv.Campbell,No.02A019808CV  00227,1999WL95978,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb.25,1999)perm.app.denied(Tenn.July6,1999)ismisplaced. o WhilethereislanguageintheSweattv.CampbellopinionandinMcGowanv.Gibson,No.E200001385COAR3CV, .~ 2000WL1721663,at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.17,2000)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)indicatingthatthe = PrisonLitigationReformActof1995requiredprisonerstocommenceandexhausttheirgrievanceremediesbeforefiling  a42U.S.C.1983actioninstatecourt,wefindnothinginthesedecisionstoindicatethateithercourtconsideredTenn. k CodeAnn.4121806(c)orthateithercourtwaspresentedwiththepreemptionquestionraisedbythiscase.These * z caseshavenotbeenformallypublished.Whilethesecasesarecertainlypersuasiveauthoritywithregardtotheissues  9 theyactuallyaddressed,theyarenotcontrollingonusinthiscase.Tenn.S.Ct.R.4(H).  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      26  `XXH  _ActofApr.24,1996,ch.913,17(a),1996Tenn.Pub.Acts569,573,codifiedatTenn.CodeAnn.4121  817(a)(1997).  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      27  `XXH  _TDOCPolicyNo.501.01.  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      21  `XXH  _S.Rep.96416,at34(1980),reprintedin1980U.S.C.C.A.N.787,816;H.R.Conf.Rep.No.96897,at15  (1980),reprintedin1980U.S.C.C.A.N.832,839.  Gf$..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH      28  `XXH  _TheCourtofAppealsmayaffirmajudgmentondifferentgroundsthanthosereliedonbythetrialcourtwhen  thetrialcourtreachedthecorrectresult.ContinentalCas.Co.v.Smith,720S.W.2d48,50(Tenn.1986);Allenv. o NationalBankofNewport,839S.W.2d763,765(Tenn.Ct.App.1992);Clarkv.Metropolitan_Govt,_Ԁ827S.W.2d312, .~ 317(Tenn.Ct.App.1991). K !..      MXHXXMXXHXXMXH  _TRY,3'LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'TH8MHMXXdd8    @_ _ 8XXH INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE #XHX8q#Ԉ    8XXHATNASHVILLE#XHX8#   @ IXXHAssignedonBriefsAugust2,2001#XHXI͊#Ԉ > IXXH @>>ERICCORDELLPENDLETON,etal.v.JOSEPHGOWERMILLS  0 XHXI@5 5  AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty   H @  No.00C1922HamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.,Judge   . A ) ` dJE<` A   @( (  No.M200003097_COA_ԄR3CV FiledSeptember18,_2001 _Ԉ   A ) ` dE<X` A Y    ThisappealinvolvesadisputebetweentwoprisonersincarceratedattheRiverbendMaximum V  SecurityInstitutionandacorrectionsofficerovertheconfiscationofadraftnoteoneprisoner < desiredtopasstotheother.Oneoftheprisonersfiledagrievanceovertheconfiscationofhisnote. "r Beforetheprisonsgrievanceprocedureshadbeenexhausted,bothprisonersfiledaprose42U.S.C. X 1983(1994)actionintheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty,allegingthatthecorrectionsofficer > hadviolatedhisoathofoffice,unlawfullydiscriminatedagainstthembasedontheirrace,and $ unlawfullyinterferedwiththeirrightofaccesstocourt.Thetrialcourtgrantedthecorrections   officersmotionforsummaryjudgmentbasedontheprisonersfailuretoexhausttheirremedies  beforefilingsuit.Bothprisonershaveappealed.Wehavedeterminedthatthetrialcourterredby  dismissingtheprisonerscomplaintforfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremediesasrequiredby42 l U.S.C.1997e(a)(1994Supp.V1999).However,wehavealsodeterminedthatthecomplaintof R oneoftheprisonersissubjecttodismissalonothergrounds. 8 Ѐ n   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPartand T ReversedinPart  :   WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand    PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined. !! EricPendletonandRickyFlamingoBrown,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSe. h## PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;andDawn 4% % Jordan,AssistantAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,JosephGowerMills. &j!&  @55'OPINION  '6#(  @)I.  )%*   EricC.PendletonandRickyFlamingoBrownareincarceratedattheRiverbendMaximum ~+&,  SecurityInstitutioninNashville.Mr.Pendletonisservingalifesentenceandaconcurrentsixyear d,'- sentencefollowinghis1987convictionsforfirstdegreemurderandaggravatedassault.    1      ׀Mr.Brown   isservingalifesentencestemmingfromhis1987convictionforrapinghistwelveyearold  daughter.   2       |   BothMr.PendletonandMr.Brownareextremelylitigious.Inadditiontothedirectappeal H fromhisconvictions,Mr.Pendletonhasfiledthreepetitionsforpostconvictionreliefinstatecourt, . ~ onepetitionforawritofhabeascorpusinstatecourt,and,athisowncount,twootherlawsuitsin  d theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseewhichhavebeendismissed.  J Mr.Brownforfeitedthedirectappealfromhisrapeconvictionbecauseofhisescape.However,  0 followinghisrecapture,hehasfiledonepetitionforpostconvictionreliefinstatecourt,andtwelve    lawsuitsintheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheMiddleDistrictofTennesseeandonelawsuitin    theUnitedStatesDistrictCourtfortheWesternDistrictofTennessee.Allbutoneoftheselawsuits   havebeendismissedandhavebeenfoundtobefrivolous. L   3       x    Mr.Pendletonservesasan inmatelegalhelper    4      ׀forUnitOneatRiverbendMaximum D  SecurityInstitution.OnJune19,2000,inresponsetoanappropriaterequest,hemetwithMr. *z  BrowninthenoncontactvisitingroomofUnitOne.Thetwoprisonerswereseparatedbyaglass ` partition,apparentlyforsecurityreasons.Thepurposeofthismeetingwastodiscusshowthey F couldchallengethefederalAntiterrorismandEffectiveDeathPenaltyActof1996( AEDPA).    5       ,   Messrs.PendletonandBrownapparentlydecidedthattheprisonlibrarydidnotcontain  sufficientinformationabouttheAEDPAandthattheyshouldfileagrievanceagainstthelibraryfor  lackofinformationandforfailingtoprovideassistance.Theydecidedtoaskthelibrarianto t providethemwithinformationregardinghowthelibraryhadacquireditsinformationregardingthe Z AEDPA.BecauseMr.Brownlackedpaper,herequestedMr.Pendletontoprovidehimwithasheet @ ofpapertodraftthequestionstheyplannedtoputtothelibrarian.Becausetheywereseparatedby &v glass,Mr.PendletonaskedCorporalJosephGowerMills,whowasobservingtheirdiscussion,to  \ handasheetofpapertoMr.Brown.CorporalMillscomplied.AfterMr.Browncompletedthe B draft,heaskedCorporalMillstohandthedrafttoMr.Pendleton.Ratherthanreturningthedraft ( toMr.Pendleton,CorporalMillsconfiscateditonthepretextthatdepartmentpolicydidnotpermit  employeestohanddeliverinmatemessagesaddressedtootherstaffmembers.   6      ׀Whenconfronted  byMessrs.BrownandPendletonabouthisactions,CorporalMillsresponded,atleastaccordingto  theprisoners: Allyoublackprisonersdoissitaroundtryingtogetoutofprison. |   Mr.BrownfiledaninmategrievanceregardingthisincidentonJune23,2000.Corporal H MillsssupervisorandthegrievanceboardsidedwithCorporalMillsatthefirstlevelofthe . ~ grievanceproceeding,andonJuly4,2000,Mr.Brownrequestedasecondlevelhearing.Beforethis  d hearingcouldbeheld,Messrs.BrownandPendletonfiledthis42U.S.C.1983complaintinthe  J CircuitCourtforDavidsonCountyonJuly11,2000,allegingthatCorporalMillshaddeniedthem  0 accesstothecourts,haddiscriminatedagainstthembasedontheirrace,andhadviolatedhisoath    ofoffice.      TwoweeksafterMessrs.BrownandPendletonfiledtheirlawsuit,thegrievanceboard x  recommendedtothewardenthatinternalaffairspersonnelshouldlookintotheallegations ^  concerningCorporalMills.ThewardenoverruledthisrecommendationonJuly25,2000,andon D  August4,2000,theCommissionerofCorrectionsdesigneedeniedMr.Brownsappealand *z  concurredwiththewardensdecision.Withthisaction,Mr.Brownhadexhaustedallhisavenues ` foradministrativeconsiderationofhisgrievancearisingoutoftheJune19,2000incident. F   OnAugust29,2000,theAttorneyGeneralandReporterfileda motiontodismissorfor  summaryjudgmentonbehalfofCorporalMills.Themotionassertedthatthecomplaintfiledby  Messrs.BrownandPendletonfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcouldbegrantedandthat  CorporalMillswasentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Unfortunately,theAttorneyGenerals t motionfailedtostatepreciselywhyCorporalMillswasentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflawas Z requiredbyTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02.G   7      ׀Wepresumefromtheaffidavitby Sargent[sic]Eyvonne @ Staplesattachedtothemotion,thattwoofthegroundsofthemotionmusthavebeenthatMr. &v BrownsgrievancehadnotbeenfullyresolvedandthatMr.Pendletonhadnotfiledagrievance  \ regardingtheJune19,2000incident.   8      ׀OnOctober26,2000,thetrialcourtenteredanordergranting B CorporalMillsssummaryjudgmentmotionanddismissingthecomplaint.Thisorderdoesnotstate ( thebasisforthetrialcourtsdecision.    @) II.   @ee TheStandardofReview     ThemotionfiledonbehalfofCorporalMillsisahybrid.ItcombinesaTenn.R.Civ.P. b 12.02(6)motiontodismisswithaTenn.R.Civ.P.56motionforsummaryjudgment.Ofcourse, H aTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionmustbeconvertedtoasummaryjudgmentmotionif matters . ~ outsidethepleadingsarepresentedtoandnotexcludedbythecourt.PacificEasternCorp.v.Gulf  d LifeHoldingCo.,902S.W.2d946,952(Tenn.Ct.App.1995).Thus,attheoutset,wemust  J determinewhetherthetrialcourtreliedonmattersoutsideofthepleadingswhenitgrantedCorporal  0 Millssmotion.      IncludedwiththemotionfiledonbehalfofCorporalMillsistheAugust10,2000affidavit   bySergeantEyvonneStaples.ThisaffidavitrelatesexclusivelytothestatusofMr.Browns x  pendinggrievanceandthefactthatMr.Pendletonneverfiledagrievanceofhisown.Inlightofthe ^  recitalinthetrialcourtsorderthatitconsideredthemotion onthepleadingsandothermaterials D  submitted,weconcludethatthetrialcourtdidnotexcludeSergeantStaplessaffidavitand, *z  therefore,thatCorporalMillssmotion,atleastinsofarasthegroundsthatrelyontheaffidavitare ` concerned,mustbetreatedasamotionforsummaryjudgmentunderTenn.R.Civ.P.56.However, F totheextentthatthemotionassertedgroundsunderTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)thatdidnotrelyon , SergeantStaplessaffidavit,itshouldbetreatedasamotiontodismiss.Thedifferencebetweena  motiontodismissandamotionforsummaryjudgmentismorethanacademicwhenitcomestothe  standardofreview.  @) A.  Z @ TheStandardofReviewForOrdersGrantingTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)Motions  @   ThesolepurposeofaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismissistotestthesufficiency  \ ofthecomplaint,notthestrengthoftheplaintiffsevidence.Doev.Sundquist,2S.W.3d919,922 B (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).   DismissalunderTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)iswarrantedonlywhentheallegedfactswillnotentitle p!  theplaintifftorelieforwhenthecomplaintistotallylackinginclarityandspecificity.Dobbsv. V"! Guenther,846S.W.2d270,273(Tenn.Ct.App.1992). <#"   ATenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionadmitsthetruthofalltherelevantandmaterialfactual %X $ allegationsinthecomplaintbutassertsthatnocauseofactionarisesfromthesefacts.Winchester %>!% v.Little,996S.W.2d818,82122(Tenn.Ct.App.1998);Smithv.FirstUnionNatlBank,958 &$"& S.W.2d113,115(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Accordingly,courtsreviewingacomplaintbeingtested ' #' byaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motionmustconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavoroftheplaintiff (#( bytakingallfactualallegationsinthecomplaintastrue,Steinv.DavidsonHotel,945S.W.2d714, )$) 716(Tenn.1997),andbygivingtheplaintiffthebenefitofalltheinferencesthatcanbereasonably l*%* drawnfromthepleadedfacts.RobertBanks,Jr.&JuneF.Entman,TennesseeCivilProcedure R+&+ 56(g),at254(1999).OnappealfromanordergrantingaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion,we 8,', mustlikewisepresumethatthefactualallegationsinthecomplaintaretrue,andwemustreviewthe -n(- trialcourtslegalconclusionsregardingtheadequacyofthecomplaintwithoutapresumptionof  correctness.Bellexrel.Snyderv.Icard,Merrill,Cullis,Timm,Furen&Ginsburg,P.A.,986  S.W.2dat554;Steinv.DavidsonHotel,945S.W.2dat716. | @) B.  H @ TheStandardofReviewForOrdersGrantingTenn.R.Civ.P.56Motions  . ~ Ѐ  Thestandardsforreviewingsummaryjudgmentsonappealarewellsettled.Summary  J judgmentsareproperinvirtuallyanycivilcasethatcanberesolvedonthebasisoflegalissues  0 alone.Frugev.Doe,952S.W.2d408,410(Tenn.1997);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2d208,210(Tenn.    1993);Churchv.Perales,39S.W.3d149,156(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Theyarenot,however,    appropriatewhengenuinedisputesregardingmaterialfactsexist.Tenn.R.Civ.P.56.04.Thus,a   summaryjudgmentshouldbegrantedonlywhentheundisputedfacts,andtheinferencesreasonably x  drawnfromtheundisputedfacts,supportoneconclusion!thatthepartyseekingthesummary ^  judgmentisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Webberv.StateFarmMut.Auto.Ins.Co., D  49S.W.3d265,269(Tenn.2001);Brownv.BirmanManagedCare,Inc.,42S.W.3d62,66(Tenn. *z  2001);Goodloev.State,36S.W.3d62,65(Tenn.2001). ` Ѐ  Thepartyseekingasummaryjudgmentbearstheburdenofdemonstratingthatnogenuine , disputeofmaterialfactexistsandthatitisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw.Shadrickv.  Coker,963S.W.2d726,731(Tenn.1998);Belkv.ObionCounty,7S.W.3d34,36(Tenn.Ct.App.  1999).Inordertobeentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflaw,themovingpartymusteither  affirmativelynegateanessentialelementofthenonmovingpartysclaimorestablishanaffirmative t defensethatconclusivelydefeatsthenonmovingpartysclaim.Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215 Z n.5;Cherryv.Williams,36S.W.3d78,8283(Tenn.Ct.App.2000). @   OncethemovingpartydemonstratesthatithassatisfiedTenn.R.Civ.P.56srequirements,  \ thenonmovingpartymustdemonstratehowtheserequirementshavenotbeensatisfied.Nelsonv. B Martin,958S.W.2d643,647(Tenn.1997).Mereconclusorygeneralizationswillnotsuffice. ( Cawoodv.Davis,680S.W.2d795,79697(Tenn.Ct.App.1984).Thenonmovingpartymust  convincethetrialcourtthattherearesufficientfactualdisputestowarrantatrial(1)bypointingto  evidenceeitheroverlookedorignoredbythemovingpartythatcreatesafactualdispute,(2)by   rehabilitatingevidencechallengedbythemovingparty,(3)byproducingadditionalevidencethat p!  createsamaterialfactualdispute,or(4)bysubmittinganaffidavitinaccordancewithTenn.R.Civ. V"! P.56.07requestingadditionaltimefordiscovery.McCarleyv.WestQualityFoodServ.,960 <#" S.W.2d585,588(Tenn.1998);Byrdv.Hall,847S.W.2dat215n.6.Anonmovingpartywhofails "$r# tocarryitsburdenfacessummarydismissalofthechallengedclaimbecause,asourcourtshave %X $ repeatedlyobserved,the failureofproofconcerninganessentialelementofacauseofaction %>!% necessarilyrendersallotherfactsimmaterial.Alexanderv.MemphisIndividualPracticeAssn, &$"& 870S.W.2d278,280(Tenn.1993);Straussv.Wyatt,Tarrant,Combs,Gilbert&Milom,911S.W.2d ' #' 727,729(Tenn.Ct.App.1995). (#(   Summaryjudgmentsenjoynopresumptionofcorrectnessonappeal.Scottv.Ashland l*%* HealthcareCtr.,Inc.,49S.W.3d281,285(Tenn.2001);Penleyv.HondaMotorCo.,31S.W.3d R+&+ 181,183(Tenn.2000).Accordingly,appellatecourtsmustmakeafreshdeterminationthatthe 8,', requirementsofTenn.R.Civ.P.56havebeensatisfied.Hunterv.Brown,955S.W.2d49,5051 -n(- (Tenn.1997);Masonv.Seaton,942S.W.2d470,472(Tenn.1997).Wemustconsidertheevidence  inthelightmostfavorabletothenonmovingparty,andwemustresolveallinferencesinthenon  movingpartysfavor.Doev.HCAHealthServs.,Inc.,46S.W.3d191,196(Tenn.2001);Memphis | Hous.Auth.v.Thompson,38S.W.3d504,507(Tenn.2001).Whenreviewingtheevidence,we b mustdeterminefirstwhetherfactualdisputesexist.Ifafactualdisputeexists,wemustthen H determinewhetherthefactismaterialtotheclaimordefenseuponwhichthesummaryjudgment . ~ ispredicatedandwhetherthedisputedfactcreatesagenuineissuefortrial.Byrdv.Hall,847  d S.W.2dat214;Rutherfordv.PolarTankTrailer,Inc.,978S.W.2d102,104(Tenn.Ct.App.1998).  J @^^( III.     @mm  TheRacialDiscriminationandViolationofOathofOfficeClaims       WeturnfirsttoMessrs.PendletonsandBrowns42U.S.C.1983claimschargingthat x  CorporalMillsdiscriminatedagainstthembecauseoftheirraceandthatCorporalMillsviolatedthe ^  oathofofficehetookasacorrectionsofficerasrequiredbyTenn.CodeAnn.411103(1997). D  Whiletheappellaterecordcontainsvoluminousevidentiarymattersbeyondthepleadings *z  themselves,noneofthismountainofmaterialrelatestothesetwoclaims.Accordingly,inthe ` absenceofthetrialcourtsexplanationofthebasisforitsdecisiontodismisstheseclaims,wewill F presumethattheyweredismissedpursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)becausetheyfailedtostate , aclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.Weagreewiththatdisposition.  @) A.   @  TheClaimBasedonCorporalMillssComment  t   TheracialdiscriminationclaiminthiscaseisbasedsolelyonCorporalMillsscommentthat @  allyoublackprisonersdoissitaroundtryingtogetoutofprison.Whilethestatementdoesnot &v reflecttheprofessionalismreasonablyexpectedfromTennesseescorrectionsofficers,itdoesnot  \ provideabasisfora42U.S.C.1983claim.Thissortofcommentshouldbeconsideredinlight B oftherealitiesofprisonlifebecauseconductthatmightbeconsideredinappropriateoroffensive ( infreesocietyisoftencommonplacebehindthewalls.    Thedealingsanddiscoursebetweenprisonersandthepersonsguardingthemisnotalways   polite.Orderismaintainedinaprison,notbyreasoneddiscussionordemocraticdebate,butrather p!  bycoercionanddiscipline.Noteverypushandshovebyacorrectionsofficer,evenifitmightseem V"! unnecessaryinthepeaceofajudgeschambers,givesrisetoa42U.S.C.1983claim.Johnson <#" v.Glick,481F.2d1028,1033(2dCir.1973).Thesamecanbesaidforverbaltaunts,insults,and "$r# racialslurs.Commentsthatmaybeviewedasoffensiveoutsideofprisonarenotnearlyasshocking %X $ insideprison.Shabazzv.Cole,69F.Supp.2d177,200(D.Mass.1999).Asapracticalmatter,the %>!% exchangeofverbalinsultsbetweenprisonersandcorrectionsofficersisaneverydayoccurrence. &$"& Somersv.Thurman,109F.3d614,622(9thCir.1997). ' #'   Thecourtsthathaveconsideredclaimssuchastheoneinthiscasehaveuniformlyheldthat )$) verbalthreatsandinsults,includingracialslurs,donotprovidegroundsfora42U.S.C.1983 l*%* action.E.g.,Somersv.Thurman,109F.3dat622;Purcellv.Coughlin,790F.2d263,265(2dCir. R+&+ 1986);Collinsv.Cundy,603F.2d825,827(10thCir.1979);Shabazzv.Cole,69F.Supp.2dat201; 8,', Brownv.Croce,967F.Supp.101,104(S.D.N.Y1997);Wrightv.Santoro,714F.Supp.665,666 -n(- 67(S.D.N.Y.1989);Morganv.Ward,699F.Supp.1025,1055(N.D.N.Y.1988).Tobeactionable  under42U.S.C.1983,theverbalabusemustbeaccompaniedbyawantonactofcrueltywhich,  ifitoccurred,wouldbeconsideredunusuallybrutal.McFaddenv.Lucas,713F.2d143,146(5th | Cir.1983);Spicerv.Collins,9F.Supp.2d673,683(E.D.Tex.1998).f   9      ׀ b   WhenCorporalMillsscommentismeasuredagainstthesestandards,itfallsfarshortof . ~ amountingtothesortofconductthatgivesrisetoa42U.S.C.1983claim.Messrs.Brownand  d PendletonhavenotassertedthatCorporalMillssstatementswereaccompaniedbybrutalorcruel  J actsthatwouldhavecausedthemlegitimateconcernfortheirpersonalsafetyorwellbeing.The  0 purposeof42U.S.C.1983isnottoenableprisonerstoassuagetheirhurtfeelings.Whilewedo    notcondoneorendorsestatementssuchastheoneattributedtoCorporalMills,hisstatementisde    minimusunderthecircumstancesallegedinthecomplaint.Accordingly,wefindthattheportion   ofMessrs.BrownsandPendletonscomplaintbasedonCorporalMillssstatementthat allyou x  blackprisonersdoissitaroundtryingtogetoutofprisonfailstostateaclaimuponwhichrelief ^  under42U.S.C.1983canbegranted. D  @) B.  ` @0 0  TheClaimBasedonCorporalMillssOathofOffice  F   TheclaimbasedonCorporalMillssviolationofhisoathofofficemustmeetthesamefate.  Anactionunder42U.S.C.1983providesavehicleforremedyingtheviolationofrightscreated  byfederallaw.AmericanMfrs.Mut.Ins.Co.v.Sullivan,526U.S.40,4950,119S.Ct.977,985  (1999);Gromanv.TownshipofManlapan,47F.3d678,633(3dCir.1995).Whileviolationsof t oathsofofficesuchastheoneCorporalMillstookarepunishableasperjury,Tenn.CodeAnn. Z 413103(c),theydonotprovideabasisforcivilactionsunderstatelaw.Whitakerv.Whirlpool @ Corp.,32S.W.3d222,231(Tenn.Ct.App.2000)(decliningtorecognizeacivilactionforperjury). &v Similarly,theydonotprovideabasisforcivilactionsunder42U.S.C.1983.Accordingly,the  \ portionofthecomplaintfiledbyMessrs.BrownandPendletonbasedonCorporalMillssalleged B violationofhisoathofofficefailstostateaclaimuponwhichreliefunder42U.S.C.1983canbe ( granted.  @dd) IV.    @   TheExhaustionofRemediesRequirement  p!    Theremaining42U.S.C.1983claimassertedbyMessrs.BrownandPendletonisthat <#" CorporalMillssrefusaltodeliverMr.BrownsdraftnotetoMr.Pendletonviolatedtheirrightof "$r# accesstocourt.Givingtheirpapersthemostcharitableconstructionpossible,Messrs.Brownand %X $ PendletonappeartobearguingthatCorporalMillssinterceptionofthedraftnotetotheprison %>!% librarianregardingthelibrarysAEDPAmaterialsinterferedwiththeirjointeffortstopreparea &$"& lawsuitchallengingtheconstitutionalityoftheAEDPA.,   10      ׀Ratherthanjoiningissuedirectlyonthis  claim,theAttorneyGeneralandReporter,onbehalfofCorporalMills,assertedthatthetrialcourt  shoulddeclinetoconsidertheclaimbecauseMr.Pendletonhadneverfiledagrievanceregarding | thisincidentandbecauseMr.Brownsgrievancehadnotbeenfinallyresolved. b   TheAttorneyGenerals exhaustionofremediesargumentispremisedonthemandatory . ~ exhaustionrequirementin42U.S.C.1997e(a)whichprovidesthatprisonerscannotfile42U.S.C.  d 1983actionschallenging prisonconditionsuntiltheyhaveexhaustedalltheiravailable  J administrativeremedies.Bymakingthisargument,theAttorneyGeneralignores,oratleast  0 undertakestocircumvent,Tenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)(1997)whichgivesaprisoneraninety    daygraceperiodafterfilingsuittoexhaustwhateveradministrativeremediesmightbeavailable.    WhenaskedtofileasupplementalbriefaddressingTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c),theAttorney   Generalrespondedthat42U.S.C.1997e(a)preemptsTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c).The x  AttorneyGeneralismistaken. ^  @) A.  *z    Throughthe1970s,theUnitedStatesJusticeDepartmentemployed42U.S.C.1983to F addresswidespreadviolationsoftheconstitutionalandfederalstatutoryrightsofpersonsresiding , instateinstitutions.h    11      ׀In1980,afterdecisionsbytwoUnitedStatesDistrictCourtsquestionedthe  federalAttorneyGeneralsstandingtoinitiateorinterveneinthesesortsofactions,theCongress  enactedtheCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersonsActtogivetheAttorneyGeneralstatutory  standingtocontinuetouse42U.S.C.1983toprotectpersonsinstitutionalizedinstatefacilities t inlightofthestateandlocalgovernmentsinabilityorunwillingnesstodoso.j    12       Z   Aspartofitsdeliberationsregardingthislegislation,theCongressrecognizedthatmanystate &v andlocalgovernmentshaddeveloped highqualitygrievanceresolutionsystemstoaddress  \ problemsthatledtothefilingofmany42U.S.C.1983lawsuits.k   13      ׀TheCongressalsorecognized B thatproseprisonersuitswere swampingthefederalcourts.n   14      ׀Accordingly,theCongressincluded  alimitedexhaustionrequirementintheCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersonsActtopromotethe  spreadofhighqualitygrievanceresolutionsystemsinstateandlocalinstitutionsandtoreducethe | numberoflawsuitsbypromotingtheresolutionofdisputesattheadministrativelevelwithout b litigation.Thus,Section7(a)(1)oftheCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersonsActprovided: H 8  8`   Subjecttotheprovisionsofparagraph(2),inanyactionbrought  d pursuanttosection1983ofthistitlebyanadultconvictedofacrime  J confinedinanyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacility,thecourt  0 shall,ifthecourtbelievesthatsucharequirementwouldbe    appropriateandintheinterestsofjustice,continuesuchcasefora    periodofnottoexceed90daysinordertorequireexhaustionofsuch   plain,speedy,andeffectiveadministrativeremediesasareavailable.x ` x` x 42U.S.C.1997e(a)(1)(1994).TheCongressamendedthisprovisionin1994toextendthe90day D  exhaustionperiodto180days.Asinterpretedbythefederalcourts,thisprovisionrequiredthe *z  dismissalofaprisonersSection1983actionwithprejudiceiftheprisonerdidnotexhausthisorher ` availableremedieswithinthedefinedperiod.Pedrazav.Ryan,18F.3d288,28990(5thCir.1990). F   In1996,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblyborrowedapagefromtheCongresssbookand  enactedalimitedexhaustionrequirementsubstantiallyidenticaltothe1980versionof42U.S.C.  1997e(a)(1).oG   15      ׀Tenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)provides:  8  8`    Ifaclaimisfiledbeforethegrievanceprocedureiscomplete, Z thecourtshallstaytheproceedingwithrespecttotheclaimfora @ periodnottoexceedninety(90)daystopermitcompletionofthe &v grievanceprocedure. \` x` x Basedonitsplainlanguage,Tenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c),liketheoriginalversionofitsfederal ( counterpart,givesprisonersa90dayopportunitytoexhaustwhateveradministrativeremediesthey  hadavailableafterfilingthe42U.S.C.1983actioninstatecourt.Ifanything,Tenn.CodeAnn.  4121806(c)wasmoreliberalthanitsfederalcounterpartbecauseitdidnotconditionaprisoners   righttoa90daygraceperiodonacourtsdeterminationthatgrantingthegraceperiodwouldbe p!   appropriateandintheinterestsofjustice. V"! __  WhiletheTennesseeGeneralAssemblywasliberalizingtheexhaustionrequirementsfor "$r# prisonersfiling42U.S.C.1983actionsinthestatecourts,theCongresswasmovinginthe %X $ oppositedirection.TheCongressrealizedthattheCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersonsActhad %>!% causedanincreaseratherthanadecreaseinthenumberofprose42U.S.C.1983actionsfiledby &$"& prisonersinthefederalcourts.Accordingly,withinmonthsaftertheTennesseeGeneralAssembly ' #'  enactedTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c),theCongressenactedthePrisonLitigationReformAct (#( of1995whichreplacedthelimitedexhaustionrequirementthathadbeeninexistencesince1980  withamandatoryexhaustionrequirement.Asamended,42U.S.C.1997e(a)nowstates:   8  8`    Noactionshallbebroughtwithrespecttoprisonconditions b undersection1983ofthistitle,oranyotherFederallaw,bya H prisonerconfinedinanyjail,prison,orothercorrectionalfacility . ~ untilsuchadministrativeremediesasareavailableareexhausted. d` x` x Asconstruedbythefederalcourts,42U.S.C.1997e(a)currentlyrequiresthedismissalofa  0 prisoners42U.S.C.1983claimsinanycaseinwhichanavailableadministrativeremedyhasnot    beenexhausted.Masseyv.Wheeler,221F.3d,1030,1034(7thCir.2000).Thus,thecurrent    mandatoryexhaustionrequirementrequiresaprisonertoexhaustalladministrativeremediesthat   areavailableregardlessofwhethertheseremedieswillprovidetheprisonerthereliefheorshe x  seeks.Boothv.Churner,531U.S.956,___,121S.Ct.1819,1825(2001);Perezv.WisconsinDept ^  ofCorrs.,182F.3d532,53637(7thCir.1999). D    Thefateofthedenialofaccesstocourtclaiminthiscasedependsuponwhetherthelimited ` exhaustionrequirementinTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)orthemandatoryexhaustion F requirementin42U.S.C.1997e(a)applies.Iftheformer,thecomplaintisnotsubjecttodismissal , forfailuretoexhaustadministrativeremediesbecauseMr.Brownpursuedthegrievanceprocedure  toitsconclusionwithinninetydaysafterfilinghiscomplaint.Ifthelatter,thecomplaintissubject  todismissalbecauseMr.Brownhadnotexhaustedhisremediesunderthegrievanceprocedureby  thetimehefiledsuit.Whencalledupontoexplainwhichofthesestatutesappliesinthiscase,the t AttorneyGeneralrespondedthat42U.S.C.1997e(a)appliesbecauseitpreemptsTenn.CodeAnn. Z 4121806(c). @ @) B.   \   Ourfederalsystemofgovernmentrecognizesthedualsovereigntyofthefederalgovernment ( andthevariousstategovernments.Printzv.UnitedStates,521U.S.898,918,117S.Ct.2365,2376  (1997);Gregoryv.Ashcroft,501U.S.452,457,111S.Ct.2395,2399(1991).Thestatespossess  sovereigntywithintheirparticularspheresconcurrentwiththefederalgovernmentsubjectonlyto   thepoweroftheCongressundertheSupremacyClauseoftheUnitedStatesConstitutionl   16      ׀to p!  preemptstatelaw.Tafflinv.Levitt,493U.S.455,458,110S.Ct.792,795(1990);BellSouth V"! Telecomm.,Inc.v.Greer,972S.W.2d663,670(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). <#"   Thecourts,however,arereluctanttopresumethatpreemptionofstatelawhasoccurred. %X $ Building&Constr.TradesCouncilv.AssociatedBuilders&ContractorsofMassachusetts/Rhode %>!% Island,Inc.,507U.S.218,224,113S.Ct.1190,1194(1993);BellSouthTelecomm.,Inc.v.Greer, &$"& 972S.W.2dat670.Accordingly,thecourtsworkfromtheassumptionthatthehistoricpowersof ' #' thestateswithregardtomatterstraditionallysubjecttostateregulationarenotdisplacedbyafederal (#( statuteunlessthatistheclearandmanifestintentofCongress.LorillardTobaccoCo.v.Reilly,___  U.S.___,___,121S.Ct.2404,241415(2001);Egelhoffv.Egelhoff,___U.S.___,___,121U.S.  1322,1330(2001);CaliforniaDiv.ofLaborStandardsEnforcementv.DillinghamConst.,N.A.,519 | U.S.316,325,117S.Ct.832,838,(1997);GraceThruFaithv.Caldwell,944S.W.2d607,609 b (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). H   Congressionalpurposeisthe ultimatetouchstoneofthepreemptioninquiry.Cipollone  d v.LiggettGroup,Inc.,505U.S.504,516,112S.Ct.2608,2617(1992);Riggsv.Burson,941  J S.W.2d44,48(Tenn.1997).Thecourtshavefoundtherequisitepreemptivepurposeinthree  0 circumstances.First,expresspreemptionoccurswhentheCongressincludesexplicitpreemptive    languageinthefederalstatutes.Second,impliedpreemptionexistswhenthefederalstatutesoccupy    theentirelegislativefieldleavingnoroomforstateregulation.p   17      ׀Third,impliedpreemptionalso   exists,eveniftheCongresshasnotoccupiedtheentirefield,totheextentofanyoutrightoractual x  conflictbetweenfederalandstatelaw.qG   18      ׀LorillardTobaccoCo.v.Reilly,___U.S.at___,121S. ^  Ct.at2414;Gadev.NationalSolidWastesMgt.Assn,505U.S.88,98,112S.Ct.2374,2383 D  (1992);;LeTellierv.LeTellier,40S.W.3d490,497(Tenn.2001);ProfillDev.,Inc.v.Dills,960 *z  S.W.2d17,27(Tenn.Ct.App.1997). `   Thesecategoriesofpreemptionarenot rigidlydistinct.Englishv.GeneralElec.Co.,496 , U.S.72,79n.5,110S.Ct.2270,2275n.5(1990).TheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthasheldthat  preemptionexistswhenitisimpossibleforaprivatepartytocomplywithbothstateandfederallaw  andwhen,underthecircumstancesoftheparticularcase,thestatelawstandsasanobstacletothe  accomplishmentandexecutionofthefullpurposesandobjectivesoftheCongress.Crosbyv. t NationalForeignTradeCouncil,530U.S.363,37273,120S.Ct.2288,2294(2000);Watsonv. Z ClevelandChairCo.,789S.W.2d538,542(Tenn.1989). @   Anypreemptioninquirymustbeginwiththelanguageofthefederalstatutes.Incases  \ involvingexpresspreemption,thetextofthefederalstatutewilldefinethedomainthatCongress B intendedtopreempt.Medtronic,Inc.v.Lohr,518U.S.470,484,116S.Ct.2240,2250(1996). ( However,inbothexpressandimpliedpreemptioncases,thefederalstatutorylanguagedoesnot  occurinavacuum.Accordingly,thecourtsmustalsoconsiderthestructureandpurposeofthe  entirefederalstatutoryscheme.Crosbyv.NationalForeignTradeCouncil,530U.S.at___,120   S.Ct.at2294;BarnettBankofMarionCounty,N.A.v.Nelson,517U.S.25,31,116S.Ct.1103, p!  1108(1996);IngersollRandCo.v.McClendon,498U.S.133,138,111S.Ct.478,482(1990). V"! Statelawshouldbedisplacedonlytotheextentthatitisexpresslyorimpliedlypreempted.Dalton <#" v.LittleRockFamilyPlanningServs.,516U.S.474,476,116S.Ct.1063,1064(1996);BellSouth "$r# Telecomm.,Inc.v.Greer,972S.W.2dat671.Accordingly,theproperapproachistoreconcilethe %X $ federalandstatelaws,Rayv.AtlanticRichfieldCo.,435U.S.151,18283,98S.Ct.988,1007 %>!% (1978);MerrillLynch,Pierce,Fenner&Smith,Inc.v.Ware,414U.S.117,127,94S.Ct.383,389 &$"& 90(1973),ratherthantoseekoutconflictwherenoneclearlyexists.ExxonCorp.v.Governorof ' #' Maryland,437U.S.117,130,98S.Ct.2207,2216(1978). (#(  )$) @) C.     ThePrisonLitigationReformActof1995doesnotcontainanexpresspreemption | provision.m   19      ׀Accordingly,iftheAttorneyGeneralspreemptionargumentonbehalfofCorporal b Millsistosucceed,itmustbepremisedoneitherconflictpreemptionorfieldpreemption.Asbest H wecandeterminefromthesketchyargumentintheAttorneyGeneralssupplementalbrief,he . ~ appearstobearguingthatTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)hasbeenpreemptedbythePrison  d LitigationReformActof1995becauseitconflictswith42U.S.C.1997e(a).Thus,wemust  J examine42U.S.C.1997e(a)anditsrelatedstatutestoascertainwhethertheCongressclearlyand  0 manifestlyintendedtopreemptproceduralstatuteslikeTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c).      ThelegislativehistoryofPrisonLitigationReformActof1995providesnoinsightinto   whethertheCongressintendedforthemandatorypreemptionprovisionstoapplyto42U.S.C. x  1983claimsfiledinstatecourts.However,thisActamendedtheCivilRightsofInstitutionalized ^  PersonsAct,andthelegislativehistoryoftheCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersonsActprovides D  somehelpfulinsightintotheCongresssintent.TheSenateReportonthislegislationexplainsthat *z   [t]hissection[thelimitedexhaustionprovision]provides,incertaincases,forexhaustionof ` correctionalgrievanceprocedurespriortocommencementofaprisonersuitinFederalcourtunder F 42U.S.C.1983.tG   20      ׀Similarly,boththeSenateReportandtheHouseConferenceCommitteeReport , pointedoutthatthelimitedexhaustionprovision authorizesaFederalcourtinwhichanadult  prisonerssuitfiledunder42U.S.C.1983ispendingtocontinuethatactionforaperiodnotto  exceed90daysiftheprisonerhasaccesstoagrievanceresolutionsystem....y   21      ׀ThattheCongress  wouldspecificallystatethattheprovisionappliedtothefederalcourtswithoutmentioningits t applicationtothestatecourtssuggeststhattheCongresshadnopreemptoryintent.r   22       Z ________  TheCongresssspecificmentionoffederalcourtswithoutalsomentioningstatecourtswas &v notanoversight.From1980through1996,theCongressknewthatbothfederalandstatecourtshad  \ jurisdictionover42U.S.C.1983claims.5    23      ׀Italsoknewthatithadpurposelyleftmanyofthe B  proceduresgoverningtheconsiderationof42U.S.C.1983claims,inbothfederalandstatecourts, ( tobegovernedbystatelaw.-   24      ׀Accordingly,thefederalcourtshadconsistentlydeferredtostate   proceduralrules,suchasthosegoverningthetollingofstatutesoflimitations,Hardinv.Straub,490  U.S.536,543,109S.Ct.1998,2003(1989),orthosedefiningthefinalityofjudgmentforthe | purposesofanappeal,Johnsonv.Fankell,520U.S.911,919,117S.Ct.1800,1805(1997). b   Becauseofitsawarenessthat42U.S.C.1983actionscouldbefiledinstatecourts,the . ~ Congressknewfullwellthefederallawmusttakethestatecourtsasitfindsthem.Howlettv.Rose,  d 496U.S.356,372,110S.Ct.2430,2441(1990).Accordingly,theCongressunderstood(1)that  J thestateshavegreatlatitudetoestablishthestructureandjurisdictionoftheirowncourts,Johnson  0 v.Fankell,520U.S.at919,117S.Ct.at1805and(2)thatstatecourtshavegreatlatitudeto    establishtherulesofproceduregoverninglitigationintheirowncourts.Felderv.Casey,487U.S.    131,138,108S.Ct.2302,2306(1988);SelmaMed.Ctr.,Inc.v.Fontenot,___So.2d___,___,   2001WL873615,at*11(Ala.2001)(Johnstone,J.,concurring);ExParteGounis,263S.W.988, x  990(Mo.1924);Kramerv.Horton,383N.W.2d54,59(Wis.1986),overruledonothergrounds ^  byCasteelv.Vaade,481N.W.2d476,483(Wis.1992).InlightoftheCongresssawarenessofthis D  generalrule,itiseasytounderstandwhytheCongresslimiteditsconsiderationoftheexhaustion *z  requirementtofederalcourts. `   Asafinalmatter,theAttorneyGeneralspreemptionargumentcannotsucceedbecause , Tenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)neitherconflictswithnorfrustratestheaccomplishmentofthe  goalsofthefederalstatutes.Itisnotinconflictwiththeremedialpurposeof42U.S.C.1983  whichisto ensurethatindividualswhosefederalconstitutionalorstatutoryrightsareabridgedmay  recoverdamagesorsecureinjunctiverelief.Burnettv.Grattan,466U.S.42,55,104S.Ct.2924, t 2932(1984).Givingprisonersuptoninetydaystoexhausttheirgrievanceremediesbefore Z dismissingtheir42U.S.C.1983action,ifanything,increasesthepossibilitythatdeservinginmates @ willbeabletoobtainjudicialreliefinstatecourtsiftheirdisputewiththeirkeepersarenot &v satisfactorilyresolvedthroughthegrievanceprocess.  \   WereachthesameconclusionwhenweconsiderTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)inlight ( oftheCongressspurposesforenactingthemandatoryexhaustionrequirementinthePrison  LitigationReformActof1995.Likeitspredecessor,theCivilRightsofInstitutionalizedPersons  Act,thepurposeofthePrisonLitigationReformActof1995istoreducethenumberoffrivolous,   proseprisonerlawsuitscloggingthecourts.Tenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)isconsistentwiththis p!  goalbecauseitwillnotpromptprisonerstofiletwosuitsonthesameissue. V"!   Asageneralmatter,alawsuitfiledbeforetheexhaustionofavailableadministrative "$r# remediesissubjecttodismissalonthegroundthatitisnotyetripeforadjudication.Adismissal %X $ onlackofripenessgroundsis,ofcourse,notadecisiononthemeritsforthepurposesofres %>!% judicata.13ACharlesA.Wright,etal.,FederalPracticeandProcedure3532.1,at137(2ded. &$"& 1984).Accordingly,aprisonerwhoseinitialsuitisdismissedforfailuretoexhaustgrievance ' #'  remedieswillsimplyfileasecondsuitafterhisorhergrievanceisdenied.Ironically,wereweto (#( adopttheAttorneyGeneralspreemptionargument,wewouldmostlikelyincreasetheamountof  prisonerlitigation.Weseelittletobegainedbyadoptingthispractice.     Insummary,wehavedeterminedthattheAttorneyGeneralhasfailedtodemonstratethat b theCongressclearlyandmanifestlyintendedtopreemptstatuteslikeTenn.CodeAnn.4121 H 806(c)whenitenactedthecurrentversionof42U.S.C.1997e(a).u   25      ׀Intheabsenceofthissortof . ~ intent,wefindthattheproceduralrequirementsofTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(c)areapplicable  d tothecomplaintfiledbyMessrs.BrownandPendleton.TheAttorneyGeneralhasfailedto  J demonstratethatCorporalMillsisentitledtoajudgmentasamatteroflawonthegroundthat  0 Messrs.BrownandPendletondidnotcomplywith42U.S.C.1997e(a).Accordingly,thetrial    courterredbygrantingCorporalMillsasummaryjudgmentbasedon42U.S.C.1997e(a).    @) V.  x  @  Mr.PendletonsDenialofAccesstoCourtClaim  ^    InSectionIVofthisopinion,weconcludedthatthetrialcourterredbyrelyingon42U.S.C. *z  1997e(a)todismisstheportionofthecomplaintfiledbyMessrs.BrownandPendletonbasedon ` theallegeddenialoftheiraccesstocourt.However,thisdecisiondoesnotpreventusfrom F examiningMr.Pendletonsclaimtodeterminewhetherhehascompliedwiththerequirementsof , Tenn.CodeAnn.4121806.Wehavedetermined,basedontheundisputedevidence,thathehas  notandthathisfailuretodosoprovidesgroundsfordismissinghis42U.S.C.1983claim.    In1996,theTennesseeGeneralAssemblydirectedtheDepartmentofCorrectionto develop t andmaintainasystemfortheresolutionofgrievancesbyinmateshousedinfacilitiesoperatedby Z thedepartmentthatqualifiesforcertificationunder42U.S.C.1997e.w?   26      ׀TheDepartment @ respondedbyimplementingagrievanceprocedurein1996andbyamendingthisprocedurein &v 2000.x    27      ׀Basedonthesepolicies,CorporalMillssactionsonJune19,2000providedgroundsfor  \ filinganinmategrievance.Mr.Brown,infact,filedaninmategrievanceonJune23,2000,butMr. B Pendletondidnot. (   Whenastatutemandatesanadministrativeremedy,onemustexhaustthisadministrative  remedybeforeseekingjudicialrelief.Thomasv.StateBd.ofEqual.,940S.W.2d563,566(Tenn.   1997);Coev.CityofSevierville,21S.W.3d237,241(Tenn.Ct.App.2000);Davisv.Sundquist, p!  947S.W.2d155,156(Tenn.Ct.App.1997).Thisgenerallyapplicableprincipleappliesto42  U.S.C.1983claimsfiledinstatecourt.L.L.Bean,Inc.v.Bracey,817S.W.2d292,297(Tenn.  1991). |   Mr.Pendletonfailedtoevenseektheremediesavailabletohimundertheexistinggrievance H procedures.Accordingly,hecouldnotcomplywithTenn.CodeAnn.4121806(a)srequirement . ~ thathefileanaffidavitstatingthathehadfiledagrievanceandthatithadbeenfinallyresolved.  d Neitherdidheundertaketofileandexhausthisgrievanceremedieswithinninetydaysafterheand  J Mr.Brownfiledtheircomplaint.Hisclaimwas,therefore,subjecttodismissalunderthestate,as  0 opposedtothefederal,commonlawandstatutoryexhaustionrequirements.Accordingly,weaffirm    thedismissalofMr.Pendletonscomplaint,albeitondifferentgroundsthanthoserelieduponby    thetrialcourt.z   28         @dd) VI.  ^    WeaffirmthedismissalofMr.Pendletonscomplaintonallgroundsandthedismissalof *z  theportionsofMr.Brownscomplaintseekingreliefforbothracialdiscriminationandviolationof ` CorporalMillssoathofoffice.However,wereversethedismissaloftheportionofMr.Browns F complaintseekingrelieffortheallegeddenialofhisaccesstocourtandremandthecasetothetrial , courtforfurtherproceedingsconsistentwiththisopinion.Wetaxthecostsofthisappealtothe  StateofTennesseeforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.   h_____________________________ @ WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE