WPCf  @ZO۠ע߼a]&9HuDYBP%!0es&(5L V`˫_ k^sAdVXq7J64PIW<>Dl0xc_SR<;:ɘ@K?RI0_xS8.bpP=)TFfOų٢8F (/3ػ7)>j`hJc|ob3ggox]L1o9L*?KE6$=|bF$T.pMb&:Gv4hB Oj\0^&ݱR?Y"FyWGH]WT4?q'|isWR˦'sNUEWUNY#b[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ 0cccc BNN 0k D3 D-B 0Koo AS  0 0Dw A(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    (#$  0  ("  Z6Times New Roman Regular(9 Z(Times New Roman stX+  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.wptK+L~12  R^$      2     _T.C.A.279102(2000)provides:  8  8`    27-9-102.Petitions Suchpartyshall,withinsixty(60)daysfromtheentryofthe 8 orderorjudgment,fileapetitionofcertiorariinthechancerycourtofanycounty N inwhichanyone(1)ormoreofthepetitioners,oranyone(1)ormoreofthe  materialdefendantsreside,orhavetheirprincipaloffice,statingbrieflytheissues  involvedinthecause,thesubstanceoftheorderorjudgmentcomplainedof,ofthe J  respectsinwhichthepetitionerclaimstheorderorjudgmentiserroneous,and  ^ prayingforanaccordantreview. "` x` x 3|xLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5U(9 Z 6Times New Roman Regular __ R^$      1     _Rule10oftheRulesoftheCourtofAppealsofTennesseestates:  8  ThisCourt,withtheconcurrenceofalljudgesparticipatinginthecase,mayaffirm,reverseormodify 8 theactionsofthetrialcourtbymemorandumopinionwhenaformalopinionwouldhaveno L precedentialvalue.WhenacaseisdecidedbyMemorandumopinionitshallbedesignated   MEMORANDUMOPINION,shallnotbepublished,andshallnotbecitedorreliedonforany  reasoninanyunrelatedcase.HP LaserJet 8000 Series PS0- -(|G2^$ !.8[d d 8         0  !@ d(|3N$ !.8[d d 8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3N$ !.8[d d 8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Ed d8     _  8+tXXdd 8  @ eINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @%ATJACKSON#e #Ԉ &   OnBriefJuly11,2001 L XX #XX#ROYTAYLORv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENTOFCORRECTION,etal.XX  J @@ ADirectAppealfromtheCircuitCourtforLauderdaleCounty  J @@No.5455TheHonorableJosephH.Walker,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.W200100583_COA_ԄR3CVFiledOctober18,_2001_   AV) ` dE<|` A }       Prisonerfiledapetitionforwritofcertiorariseekingreviewoftwodisciplinaryactionsthe x  TennesseeDepartmentofCorrectionsfiledagainsthim.TheCircuitCourtofLauderdaleCounty d dismissedtheaction,findingthatthepetitionwasnotfiledwithinthesixtydaylimitationperiodset P outin_T.C.A._Ԁ279102(2000).Weaffirminpartandreverseinpart. < #XX{#XX _Tenn.R.App.P._Ԁ3;AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheCircuitCourtAffirmedinPart; P ReversedinPart  <   #X#XX.W.FrankCrawford,P.J.,W.S.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichAlanE._Highers_,  J.andDavidR.Farmer,J.,joined.  RoyTaylor,ProSe  NoAppearancebyTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection `  XXXX@@!MEMORANDUMOPINION #  1      #XXXXȈ ##XX # XX 8!  #XXȈ #XX    ThisisanappealfromthedismissalofaprosePetitionforWritofCertiorarifiledinthe $8 $ CircuitCourtofLauderdaleCountybyPetitionerRoyTaylor( Mr.Taylor),againstemployeesof %$!% theTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection( TDOC).Mr.Taylorisseekingreviewoftwo &"& disciplinarychargesmadeagainsthimbyemployeesoftheWestTennesseeStatePrisonin  LauderdaleCounty,Tennessee,arisingoutofincidentswhichtookplaceonAugust27,2000.Inthe  firstincident(the assaultcharge),theTDOCdisciplinaryreportrevealsthatMr.Taylorassaulted  aTDOCemployeewithatelephone.Thesecondincident(the weaponscharge),whichtookplace t afewminuteslater,involvedtheconfiscationofa14"typewritershankfromMr.Taylorby_TDOC_ ` guards. L  Ѐ  Followingdisciplinaryhearings,Mr.TaylorappealedbothinfractionstotheWardenandthe $ t CommissionerofTDOC,allegingthedisciplinarychargeswereunwarranted,andthathewasdenied  ` dueprocess.OnOctober27,2000,theCommissioneraffirmedtheassaultchargeand,onNovember  L  1,2000,theCommissioneraffirmedtheweaponscharge.Mr.TaylorfiledaPetitionforWritof  8  CertiorariinLakeCountyCircuitCourtonNovember22,2000,whichthecourtdismissedforlack $  ofpropervenue.Mr.TaylorthenfiledaPetitionforWritofCertiorariinLauderdaleCountyCircuit   CourtonDecember28,2000.OnFebruary5,2001,theCircuitCourtenteredanOrderdismissing   Mr.Taylorspetition,whichreads,inrelevantpart:   8  8`    Thepetitionerfilesforwritofcertiorariallegingthathewas p chargedwithadisciplinaryinfractionandthatahearingwas \ conductedonSeptember8,2000.Hesaysthedecisionwasarbitrary H andcapricious,andthathewasdeniedanimpartialtribunal.He 4 appealedthedecisiontotheWarden,whoaffirmedtheconvictionon  p September22,2000. \` x` x 8  8`    Theproperprocedureforchallengingaprisondisciplinary 4 actionispetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari.Thepetition   mustbefiledwithinsixtydaysofthechallengedaction.T.C.A.279   102.ThepetitionwasfiledDecember28,2000,whichismorethan  sixtydaysfromthechallengedaction.` x` x 8  8`    Thepetitionnotbeingfiledwithinthestatuteoflimitations, l itisherebydismissed.X ` x` x   Mr.TaylorappealsthedismissalofhisPetitionforWritofCertiorari.AlthoughMr.Taylor 0"  raisesseveralissuesonappeal,webelievetheonlyissuebeforethisCourtiswhetherthetrialcourt #l! erredindismissingthePetitionasuntimely. $X"   XXXXAmotiontodismissacomplaintforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted %0!$ teststhelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint.Itadmitsthetruthofallrelevantandmaterialallegations &"% butassertsthatsuchallegationsdonotconstituteacauseofactionasamatteroflaw. SeeRiggsv. '#& _Burson_ ,941S.W.2d44(Tenn.1997).Obviously,whenconsideringamotiontodismissforfailure (#' tostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted,wearelimitedtotheexaminationofthecomplaint )$( alone. See_Wolcotts_ԀFin.Serv.,Inc.v._McReynolds_ ,807S.W.2d708(Tenn.Ct.App.1990).The |*%) basisforthemotionisthattheallegationsinthecomplaintconsideredaloneandtakenastrueare h+&* insufficienttostateaclaimasamatteroflaw. See_Cornpropst_Ԁv.Sloan ,528S.W.2d188(Tenn.  1975).Inconsideringsuchamotion,thecourtshouldconstruethecomplaintliberallyinfavorof  theplaintiff,takingalltheallegationsoffactthereinastrue. SeeCook_Uithoven_Ԁv.Spinnakersof  _Rivergate_,Inc. ,878S.W.2d934(Tenn.1994).#XXXXȆ# t   Inreviewingtherecordinthiscase,itisapparentthat,althoughMr.Taylorsoughtjudicial L  reviewoftwoseparatedisciplinaryactions,thetrialcourtaddressedonlyonedisciplinaryactionin 8  itsOrder.WeagreewiththetrialcourtthattheassaultchargewhichtheCommissioneraffirmedon $ t October27,2000isbarredbyT.C.A.279102.  #  2      ׀However,theweaponscharge,whichoccurred  ` onthesameday,wasgivenaseparatehearingandwasnotaffirmedbytheCommissioneruntil  L  November1,2000.Therefore,astotheweaponscharge,Mr.TaylorsPetitionwastimelyand  8  shouldhavebeenreviewedbythetrialcourt. $    Forthesereasons,weaffirmtheorderofthetrialcourtastotheassaultcharge,butreverse   astotheweaponscharge.Thiscaseisremandedtothetrialcourtforfurtherproceedingsconsistent   withthisopinion.CostsofthisappealareassessedtotheAppellee.#XX #XX      `     h   __________________________________________ 4    `     h   W.FRANKCRAWFORD,PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.