WPC Ie\F+o=D;*C%0w[\Yr &J ZˤpޕcĜg2#>~`>ӥm&}{h@vӇl~&j-D>c_Bno7J .3hNL;Gc8o}6:Z#K]woٟNҷ +-%bbgP;3#2&`Pc9΋ZZ,S/ }iCll <—z["̈qs&1d.Y*`WB8A53Y QyL4@22aˊF$u'^~|p[Ą'2--z|oKl߷d/Ҥɪv^]Tm0vҮ$kE^ 5p`€dQl7XWpƛ݊eX|H3ֽř,7,uMomiVupT3b#\ % ^ # 0/ UN w 4 z  i x mz   _ %  NEb 0 B 0 D3i D- 0K ASg 0- 0D AHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0̦+s (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular8n_++00 C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|xU Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5- -(|G2$ !.8Odd8         0   d(|3$ !.8Odd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Odd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Odd8     _  O8XXdd8  @ KOINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#OK #Ԉ &   AssignedonBriefsMarch14,2001 L XXO #OXX#DANIELB.TAYLORv.DONALCAMPBELL,etal.XXO  J @@ AppealfromtheCircuitCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.00C1844HamiltonV.Gayden,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200002843_COA_ԄR3CVFiledDecember10,_2001_Ԁ   AV) ` dE<|` A }     OnJuly3,2000,Appellantfiledhiscivilcomplaintbaseduponpunishmentimposedfora x  disciplinaryinfractionwhileaprisonerat_Turney_ԀCenterinOnly,Tennessee.OnJuly18,2000,the d trialjudge,suasponte,dismissedthecomplaint,andthisappealfollowed.Weaffirmthetrialcourt. P  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmed  (x   #OXz#XX.OWilliamB.Cain,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.and P PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,joined. < DanielB.Taylor,Only,Tennessee,ProSe.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;TerriLeigh_Bernal_,Nashville,Tennessee,forthe  appellees,_Donal_ԀCampbell,Commissioner,TennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionandJackMorgan,  Warden,_Turney_ԀCenter. t  OPINION #OXX#XXO L  #OXX #  XXO  DanielB.Taylor,aninmateatTurneyCenter,sued_Donal_ԀCampbell,asCommissionerof $"t! CorrectionsofTennessee,andJackWarden,asTurneyCenterPrisonWarden,complainingofa #`" urinalysisdrugscreenandseizureoffundsfromhistrustaccountforpaymentofcourtcosts.No #L# processwasissuedorservedonDefendants,andthetrialjudge,suasponte,onJuly18,2000, $8 $ dismissedthecomplaintanddeniedtheattachedapplicationforatemporaryrestrainingorder %$!% holding: &"& 8   ` OnMay23,2000,thepetitionertestedpositiveforTHCasaresultofa (#( urinalysisdrugscreeningprogram.Thecourtisoftheopinionthatthedrug )$) screeningprocessisanadministrativeprocedureanddoesnot,retrospectivelyor p*%* otherwise,violatePetitionersconstitutionalrights.\+&+     H,', 8   ` Further,theimpositionofthepenaltyoflossofsix(6)monthsvisitation   rightsisrational.     Thecomplaintfailstoallegefactssufficienttostateacauseofaction,andthetrialcourt t properlydismissedthecomplaint. `   Thecomplaint,afterallegingthestatusoftheparties,relates: 8  8   ` 7. ThePlaintiff,atalltimesrelevanthereto,wasandisaninmateofthe  ` TennesseeDepartmentofCorrections,assignedtotheTurnerCenterinOnly,  L  Tennessee. 8    8   ` 8. PriortoJune1,2000,defendantCampbell,promulgatedrulesand   regulationswithintheDepartmentofCorrection,pertainingtoaUrinalysisDrug   ScreeningProgram,andtheseizureoffundsasadirectandproximateresultofthe   same.    8   ` 9. OnMay23,2000,atapproximately8:30a.m.plaintifffieldtested \ positiveforTHC,andthesamewassenttothelabforaconfirmationtest.H   8   ` 10. OnJune1,2000,upontheresultsoftheconfirmationtestfromlab  p beingpositiveforTHC,hewaschargedwithdrugscreenpositivedisciplinary  \ infraction.H   8   ` 11. Plaintiffexplainedtothedisciplinaryhearingofficerthatheshouldnt   haveTHC,inhissystem,becausehedidntusedrugs,despitetheAEGISPositive   descriptionofphysicalevidenceintroducedatthedisciplinaryhearing.   8   ` 12. Disciplinaryhearingofficersfindingoffactandspecificevidence  reliefupontosupportthosefinding[s]werebaseduponthefieldtest,andAGES l LABconfirmationtoestablishguilt,despitePlaintiffsstatementthattheresultswere X  fromlegallyprescribedmedicineorsecondhandsmoke.D!   8   ` 13. ThePlaintiff,atalltimesrelevantherein,haveastatutoryrighttohave #l! apositiveresultinvestigatedbythedepartmenttodeterminewhethersuchresult $X" emanatedfromtheplaintiffsuseoflegallyprescribedmedicineorwhetherit $D # resultedfromtheuseofillegaldrugs.%0!$   8   ` 14. Theallegationscontainedinnumberedparagraphs1through14are '#& incorporatedhereinbyreference.(#'   8   ` 15. Thedefendants,DonalCampbell,andJackMorgan,intheirindividual |*%) capacitiesundercolorofstatelaw,haveactedwithrepeatedwillfulanddeliberate h+&* indifferencetotheseriousneedsofthePlaintiffbyallowinghimtobefoundguilty  ofapositivedrugscreenbaseduponthelabresultsonly.   8   ` 16. Withoutfirstconductinganinvestigationtodeterminewhetherornot t theTDOC,positiveresultemanatedfromtheuseoflegallyprescribedmedicine,or ` secondhandsmoke,ratherthanintentionallyassumingitsrelatedtoillegaldrugs.L    8   ` 17. Thatthesedefendantsshouldhavesuspectedthatthedrugtestresults $ t werefalse. `   8   ` 18. Thesedefendantswerepersonallyinvolvedinorhaddirect  8  responsibilityfortheincidentthatresultedinPlaintiffsfalselybeingfoundguilty $  basedupontheuse(sic)ofillegaldrugs,los[s]ofvisitationforsix(6)months,   $22.50fineforthelabtest,and$4.00forprocessingofthedisciplinaryinfraction.    8   ` 19. Thatthesedefendantsha[ve]appliedanamendeddrugscreenpolicy   andstatuteretro[s]pectivemannertothePlaintiff.p   8   ` 20. EventhoughthePlaintiffisexemptfromassessmentfeesforcost, H thesedefendantsareremovingfundsfromhisinmatetrustfundaccountformedical, 4 disciplinaryinfractions,writofexecution/garnishment,andetc. p   8   ` 21. Asadirectandproximateresultofthesedefendantsactions,the H Plaintiffexperiencedextremementalanxietyandsuffering.4   Thereupon,Plaintiffsoughtcompensatoryandpunitivedamagesandapermanentinjunctionagainst   hisconvictionforfailingthedrugscreen.    Theseallegationschallengetheintrinsiccorrectnessofthedisciplinaryproceedingheldby  theDepartmentofCorrections.Pursuanttoaurinalysisdrugscreeningprogram,hewasrandomly l testedonMay23,2000,andthefieldtestwaspositiveforTHC.Thetestwassenttothelabfor X  confirmation,which,onJune3,2000,confirmedhimastestingpositiveforTHC.Hewascharged D! withthedrugscreenpositivedisciplinaryinfraction.Heraisednoquestionofnoticeofthe 0"  proceedingsbut,rather,complainedthatthehearingofficersfindingsoffactdidnotestablishguilt #l! becausetheresultswerefromlegallyprescribedmedicineorsecondhandsmoke.Thefactsalleged, $X" takenastrue,donotassertthatthehearingofficeractedillegally,fraudulently,arbitrarilyor $D # exceededitsjurisdiction.Arnoldv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,956S.W.2d478,480(Tenn.1997). %0!$   In_Sandin_Ԁv.Conner,515US472(1995),theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtheldthatthere '#& wasnodueprocessprotectionforinprisoninflictionofpunishmentnotimposingatypicaland (#' significanthardshiponaninmateinrelationtotheordinaryincidentsofprisonlife.Imposingofa )$( $22.50fineforalabtest,$4.00forprocessingofadisciplinaryinfraction,andlossofvisitationfor |*%) sixmonthsdoesnotrisetothedignitycontemplatedbythe_Sandin_standard._Rimmer_ԄBeyv.Brown, h+&* 62F.3d789,79091(6thCir.1995);_Rienholtz_Ԁv.Campbell,64_F.Supp_.2nd721,72829(W.D.Tenn.  1999);_Orellana_Ԁv.Kyle,65F.3d29,31(5thCir.1995).    TheChancelloractedproperlyindismissingthecomplaint,suasponte,withoutwaitingfor t serviceofprocessortheinevitableTennesseeRuleofCivilProcedureRule12motion.Huckeby ` v.Spangler,521S.W.2d568,571(Tenn.1975);_Cockrill_Ԁv.Everett,958S.W.2d133,135(Tenn. L  Ct.App.1997).Appellantfurtherassertsthathisinmatetrustfundaccountisexemptedfrom 8  executionorliabilityforcourtcostsassessedagainsthiminthiscause.Thispositioniswithout $ t meritonthebasisstatedbythisCourtinDavidPalmerv.TennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,No.  ` M200002351_COA_ԄR3CV2001WL1386091(Tenn.Ct.App.Nov.8,2001).Inthatcase,this  L  Courtheld:  8  8   ` Wehavedeterminedthatthroughoutourhistorythelegislatureintendedthat $  costsoflitigationaretobetheresponsibilityofthepersoninstitutingthelitigation   unlessrelievedthereofbythejudgmentofthecourt.Thisintentismanifestedagain   bytheprovisionsofthe1978legislation,partofwhichisthesubjectexemption   statute,indicatingthatthelegislationisdirectedatdefendantjudgmentdebtors.   Placingthisdeterminationwiththeexplicitprovisioninthepaupersoathstatutethat p merelysuspendsthepaymentofcostsuntil taxedbythecourt,wereachthe \ conclusionthatthelegislativeintent,asexpressedbytheordinarymeaningofthe H languageused,isthatapersonwhoisallowedtocommenceasuitwithoutgiving 4 securityforthecostsisnotrelievedoftheobligationtopaythecostsbyvirtueofthe  p exemptionstatute. \   Id.at*4. 4   Thejudgmentofthetrialcourtisinallrespectsaffirmed,andcostsoftheappealareassessed   againsttheappellant.      Thecaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforsuchfurtherproceedingsasmaybenecessary.  ̀   `     h     ___________________________________ $X"    `     h     WILLIAMB.CAIN,JUDGE