WPC)4 A|hƟ%rȍauez "5$?ClEZU4kqpՌ\Q;BN e(>5'^/7׆cǾ!.{ ׃E"qs1N3+c,MHzb#\^  %) 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz  u; 0DN   E 0 0  0 0 0 0 0g 0I 0( 0 0 0 0 0z 0P! 0#" 0" 0# 0$bk% 0s% 0Q& 0,' 0( 0( 0) 0z* 0F+k,z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z.z. 0&/&/&/&/ B00 0.0 D30 D-1 0K2121 AS}11 02 0D:3 A~3HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0ir+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularXq+am Files C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU  Rg$      2    _TheStatesmotiontodismissdoesnotassertadefensepredicatedonTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(7),eventhough  Tenn.R.Civ.P.7.02(1)requiresthatmotionsmust statewithparticularitythegroundstherefor.Wesurmisethatthe t Statemayhavearticulatedthisdefenseinthememorandumoflawaccompanyingitsmotion;however,thismemorandum, 8 byoperationofTenn.R.App.P.24(a)isnotapartoftheappellaterecord.Sufficeittosaythatarticulatingadefense L inamemorandumaccompanyingamotiondoesnotamounttocompliancewithTenn.R.Civ.P.7.02(1).Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   Rg$      4    __TDOC_ԀPolicyNo.502.01(IV)(H)requiresproofofinfractionsbyapreponderanceoftheevidence.2J+M 0_level1  X 2( ` hp x 223  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2G+M 0_level2   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2D+M 0_level3   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2A+M 0_level4  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2>+M 0_level5   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5   RiverbendTarranceReeversRhodenDep'tConley CrimTraughber FiteYokleyBlackmonOverstreetShoneyreweighGovtCommon-LawBowlen TDOCProtectableSandinLutcheBufordDept2;+M 0_level6   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  28+M 0_level7  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  25+M 0_level8   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  22+M 0_level9    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levsl1  X 2( ` hp x 223  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2GM 0_levsl2   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levsl3   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levsl4  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levsl5   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levsl6   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levsl7  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levsl8   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levsl9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  2JM 0_levnl1  X 2( ` hp x 223   5+ ` hp x 5  - -2GM 0_levnl2   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  2DM 0_levnl3   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  2AM 0_levnl4  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  2>M 0_levnl5   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  2;M 0_levnl6   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  28M 0_levnl7  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  25M 0_levnl8   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  22M 0_levnl9    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5   a Rg$      1    _Mr.Robinsonspetitionforastatutorywritofcertiorariwasdoomedfromthestartbecausetheonlyvehicle  forobtainingjudicialreviewoftheresultsofaprisondisciplinaryproceedingisthroughacommon-lawwritofcertiorari. t Rhodenv.StateDep'tofCorr.,984S.W.2d955,956(Tenn.Ct.App.1998);Bishopv.Conley,894S.W.2d294,296 8 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994). L    Rg$      3    _TDOCPolicyNo.502.01(VI)(E)(3)(a).(|G2g$ !.8]dXXd8         0   d(|3Ia$ !.8]dXXd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3Ia$ !.8]dXXd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8]dd8     _TRY,3'LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T  ]8XXdd8  @ O]INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#]On#Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust2,2001 L XX] #]XX`#TARRANCEROBINSONv.NEILCLEMENT,etal.XX]  J @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.002928IIIEllenHobbsLyle,Chancellor  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200100365_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust27,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }     #]XX#XX]ThisappealinvolvesastateprisonerhousedattheRiverbendMaximumSecurityInstitutionwho x  wasdisciplinedforpossessingadeadlyweapon.Afterexhaustinghisinternalappeals,theprisoner d filedacommonlawwritofcertiorariintheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty,allegingthatthe P disciplinaryproceedingshadviolatedhisdueprocessrights.ThetrialcourtgrantedtheStates < motiontodismissthepetition.Onthisproseappeal,theprisonerassertsthatthetrialcourterred (x bydismissinghispetition.Wehavedeterminedthattheprisonerspetitiondoesnotstateaclaim d uponwhichreliefcanbegrantedand,therefore,affirmthetrialcourt. P   Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourtAffirmed  (   WilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichWilliamB.Cainand  PatriciaJ.Cottrell,JJ.,joined.  TarranceRobinson,Nashville,Tennessee,ProSe. t PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;and L  StephanieR.Reevers,AssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneral;Nashville,Tennessee,fortheappellees, 8!  NeilClement,JamesGary,BrendaMorrison,andBettyPreston. $"t!   OPINION  #L#   @)I.  %$!%   TarranceRobinsonisincarceratedattheRiverbendMaximumSecurityInstitutionin '"' Nashville.OnJuly21,2000,CorporalNeilClementreceivedaconfidentialnotestatingthatMr. (#( Robinsonhadpulledaknifeonanotherprisoner.Actingonthenote,CorporalClementandOfficer )$) JamesGaryconductedastripsearchofMr.Robinsoninhiscell.Duringthatsearch,anobjectfell p*%* tothefloorfromtheareaofMr.Robinsonsbuttocks.Mr.Robinsonquicklygrabbedtheobject, \+&+ forcedhiswaybetweentheofficers,andflushedtheobjectdownthetoilet.CorporalClement, H,', believingtheobjecttohavebeenapieceofmetal,chargedMr.Robinsonwithpossessionofadeadly 4-(- weapon.  .p). Ї  OnJuly24,2000,Riverbendsdisciplinaryboardconvenedtohearevidenceregardingthe  chargeagainstMr.Robinson.Mr.Robinsonconcededatthehearingthattheobjectwascontraband  butdeniedthatitwasadeadlyweapon.BasedonthetestimonyofCorporalClementandOfficer  Gary,theboardfoundMr.Robinsonguiltyofpossessionofadeadlyweapon.Theboardsentenced t Mr.Robinsontotwentydaysofpunitivesegregation,a$5fine,andrecommendedhimfor ` administrativesegregation.Mr.Robinsonlosthisprisonjobwhenhewasplacedinpunitive L  segregation.Mr.Robinsonpursuedhisinternalappealswhichultimatelyprovedunsuccessfulon 8  August24,2000,whenAssistantCommissionerJimRosedeclinedtosetasidethedisciplinary $ t boardsdecision.  `   OnSeptember9,2000,Mr.Robinsonfiledapetitionforcommonlawandstatutorywritsof  8  certiorari7 #  1      ׀intheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty,assertingthatthedisciplinaryproceedingdid $  notcomplywiththeDepartmentofCorrectionspoliciesandthatthedisciplinaryboardsdecision   lackedevidentiarysupport.TheinstitutionalofficialsrespondedthatMr.Robinsonhadsuedthe   wrongpartiesandthathispetitionfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.   ThetrialcourtfiledamemorandumandorderonDecember12,2000,concludingthatMr.Robinson   hadsuedthewrongpartiesandthathispetitionfailedtostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbe p grantedbecausehehadfailedtodemonstratethatthedisciplinaryboardsactionhadinfringedon \ alibertyorpropertyinterestentitledtoproceduraldueprocessprotection. H @) II.   p @22! StandardofReview   \   Acommonlawwritofcertiorariisanextraordinaryjudicialremedy.Robinsonv.Traughber, 4 13S.W.3d361,364(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Fitev.StateBd.ofParoles,925S.W.2d543,544(Tenn.   Ct.App.1996).Itisnotavailableasamatterofright,Boycev.Williams,215Tenn.704,71314,   389S.W.2d272,277(1965);Yokleyv.State,632S.W.2d123,127(Tenn.Ct.App.1981),butrather  isaddressedtothetrialcourtsdiscretion.Blackmonv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,29S.W.3d875,  878(Tenn.Ct.App.1999).Accordingly,decisionstograntordenyacommonlawwritofcertiorari  arereviewedusingthefamiliar abuseofdiscretionstandard.Robinsonv.Traughber,13S.W.3d l at364.Underthisstandard,areviewingcourtshouldnotreverseatrialcourtsdiscretionary X  decisionunlessitisbasedonamisapplicationofcontrollinglegalprinciplesoraclearlyerroneous D! assessmentoftheevidence,Overstreetv.Shoneys,Inc.,4S.W.3d694,709(Tenn.Ct.App.1999), 0"  orunlessitaffirmativelyappearsthatthetrialcourt'sdecisionwasagainstlogicorreasoning,and #l! causedaninjusticeorinjurytothecomplainingparty.Marcusv.Marcus,993S.W.2d596,601 $X" (Tenn.1999);Douglasv.EstateofRobertson,876S.W.2d95,97(Tenn.1994). $D #   %0!$   Thescopeofreviewunderacommonlawwritofcertiorariisextremelylimited.Courtsmay   not(1)inquireintotheintrinsiccorrectnessofthelowertribunalsdecision,Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.  ofParoles,956S.W.2d478,480(Tenn.1997);Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd.,879S.W.2d  871,873(Tenn.Ct.App.1994),(2)reweightheevidence,Wattsv.CivilServ.Bd.forColumbia,606 t S.W.2d274,277(Tenn.1980);Hoover,Inc.v.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningAppeals,924S.W.2d ` 900,904(Tenn.Ct.App.1996),or(3)substitutetheirjudgmentforthatofthelowertribunal.421 L  Corp.v.MetropolitanGovt,36S.W.3d469,474(Tenn.Ct.App.2000).Rather,thewritpermits 8  thecourtstoexaminethelowertribunalsdecisiontodeterminewhetherthetribunalexceededits $ t jurisdictionoractedillegally,fraudulently,orarbitrarily.Turnerv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,993  ` S.W.2d78,80(Tenn.Ct.App.1999);Danielsv.Traughber,984S.W.2d918,924(Tenn.Ct.App.  L  1998).  8  @^^( III.    @  TheProperPartiesInaCommonLawWritofCertiorariAction      Fromwhatwegatherfromthetrialcourtsmemorandumandorder,oneofthegroundsof   theStatesmotiontodismisswasthatMr.Robinsonhadfailedtojoinanindispensableparty.  #  2      ׀As p ithasonprioroccasions,theStateapparentlyassertedthattheonlyproperdefendantinacaseofthis \ sortistheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.Wehaverecentlyheldthatthisargumentsweeps H toobroadlyandthat,dependingonthecircumstances,partiesotherthantheDepartmentmay 4 properlybenamedasdefendants.Sealsv.Bowlen,M199900997COAR3CV,2001WL840271,  p at*3(Tenn.Ct.App.July26,2001)(holdinginaprisondisciplinecasethatboththedisciplinary  \ boardandthewardenwereproperpartiesbecauseeachofthemwasauthorizedtoimpose H disciplinarysanctionsontheprisoner). 4   Inthiscase,Mr.Robinsonnamedasdefendants,CorporalClementandOfficerGary,thetwo   correctionsofficerswhoconductedthesearch,aswellas,BrendaMorrisonandBettyPreston,two  ofthemembersoftheprisondisciplinaryboard.Throughouthisprosepleadings,Mr.Robinson  repeatedlystatedthathewasseekingrelieffromthedecisionofthe administrativebodyorthe   disciplinaryboard.Accordingly,itisevidentthatMr.Robinsonwasdirectinghislawsuittoward l theactionsoftheprisondisciplinaryboardratherthantheindividualcorrectionsofficers. X    ThetrialcourtcorrectlydismissedMr.RobinsonsclaimsagainstCorporalClementand 0"  OfficerGarybecausetheyhavenoauthoritytodisciplinehim.However,iterredtotheextentthat #l! itdismissedtheclaimsagainstthemembersoftheprisondisciplinaryboard.Mr.Robinsondidnot $X"  sueMs.MorrisonorMs.Prestonasindividuals,butasmembersofthedisciplinaryboard.Because $D # thedisciplinaryboardhadauthoritytopunishMr.Robinsonunderthefactsofthiscase,8 #  3      ׀Mr.   RobinsonsclaimsagainstMs.MorrisonandMs.Prestonshouldhavebeendeemedtobeclaims  againstthedisciplinaryboard.Accordingly,ratherthandismissingMr.Robinsonspetition,thetrial  courtshouldsimplyhavesubstitutedtheRiverbendMaximumSecurityInstitutiondisciplinaryboard t asadefendant.  ` @dd) IV.  8  @> >  Mr.RobinsonsProceduralDueProcessClaim  $ t   Mr.Robinsonassertsthattheprisondisciplinaryboardsdecisionwasarbitraryandillegal  L  becauseitviolatedhisproceduraldueprocessrights.Hebaseshisdueprocessclaimonhisbelief  8  thattheboardlackedsufficientevidencetoconcludethathewaspossessingadeadlyweapon.T #  4      ׀This $  argumentmustfailfortworeasons!onesubstantiveandoneprocedural.   @) A.    @( (  LackofaProtectablePropertyInterest      WeturnfirsttothesubstantivedefectinMr.Robinsonspetition.TotheextentthatMr. \ Robinsonisbasinghisarbitrarinessandillegalityclaimonallegedproceduraldueprocessviolations, H hemustfirstallegethathehasbeendeprivedofaninterestentitledtoprotectionundertheDue 4 ProcessClauseoftheFourteenthAmendment.Rowev.BoardofEduc.,938S.W.2d351,354(Tenn.  p 1996);Armstrongv.DepartmentofVeteransAffairs,959S.W.2d595,59798(Tenn.Ct.App.  \ 1997).Disciplinaryproceedingsareanordinarypartofprisonlife.TheUnitedStatesSupreme H Courthasheldthataprisonersdueprocessrightsareimplicatedonlywhenadisciplinaryaction 4 imposes atypicalandsignificanthardshipontheinmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsof   prisonlife,Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.472,484,115S.Ct.2293,2300(1995),thatresultsina    majordisruptionoftheprisonersenvironment.Sandinv.Conner,515U.S.at486,115S.Ct.at  2301.    TennesseescourtshaveadoptedtheSandinv.Connerrationalewithregardtoappealsfrom l prisondisciplinarydecisions.Hendersonv.Lutche,938S.W.2d428,43031(Tenn.Ct.App.1996). X  Accordingly,wehaveheretoforedeterminedthatplacementinmaximumsecurity,smallfines,loss D! ofgoodtimecredits,andlossofprisonemployment,eitherseparatelyorincombination,donot 0"  imposeasignificantenoughhardshiptotriggerdueprocessconcerns.Sealsv.Bowlen,2001WL #l! 840271,at*6(placementinmaximumsecurity,$5fine,tendaysinpunitivesegregation,andloss $X" ofonemonthofgoodtimecredits);Bufordv.TennesseeDeptofCorr.,No.M199800157COA $D # R3CV,1999WL1015762,at*5(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.10,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11 %0!$ applicationfiled)(fifteendayspunitivesegregation,$4fine,andfourmonthpackagerestriction); &"% Blackmonv.Campbell,No.01A019807CH00361,1999WL85518,at*2(Tenn.Ct.App.Feb. '#& 23,1999)(NoTenn.R.App.P.11applicationfiled)(removalfromaprisonjob). (#' Ї  Mr.Robinsonspunishmentinthiscaseincludedtwentydaysinpunitivesegregation,a$5  fine,andarecommendationforpunitivesegregation.Asaresultofthispunishment,healsolosthis  prisonjob.Thesepenaltiesarenotatypicalorsignificantenoughtotriggerdueprocessconcerns.  Accordingly,Mr.Robinsonhasfailedtostateasubstantiveclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted. t @)_ B. _Ԉ L  @  TheLimitationontheScopeofReview  8    TheseconddefectinMr.Robinsonspetitionisaproceduralonethatrelatestotheinherent  ` limitationsinthescopeofreviewprovidedbyawritofcommonlawcertiorari.Hisargumentthat  L  thedisciplinaryboardsdecisionwasnotsupportedbytheevidenceisnothingmorethananattack  8  ontheintrinsiccorrectnessoftheboardsdecisionandanefforttohavethecourtsreweighthe $  evidencepresentedtotheboard.Acommonlawwritofcertioraricannotbeusedtoraisethesesorts   ofissues.Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,956S.W.2dat480;Powellv.ParoleEligibility   ReviewBd.,879S.W.2dat873.Accordingly,theproceduralvehiclethatMr.Robinsonhaschosen   cannotprovidehimthereliefheseeks.   @) V.  \   ThetrialcourtdidnotabuseitsdiscretionbydenyingMr.Robinsonspetitionforwritof 4 certioraribecauseitsdecisionisfullysupportedbytheallegationsinMr.Robinsonspetitionand  p comportswiththeapplicablelaw.WeneednotconsidertheotherproceduralissuesraisedbyMr.  \ Robinsoninlightofourconclusionthathispetition,onitsface,failstostateaclaimuponwhich H reliefcanbegranted.Accordingly,weaffirmthejudgmentandremandthecasetothetrialcourt 4 forwhateverfurtherproceedingsmayberequired.WetaxthecostsofthisappealtoTarrance   Robinsonforwhichexecution,ifnecessary,mayissue.      `     h     _____________________________ l    `     h     WILLIAMC.KOCH,JR.,JUDGE