ÿWPC-# G´!CÛ’š½°–emÅvpû[øÐS'õ™ͼàP¡òÒó€jØE†è¢|ôÑ£÷ Mï_˜È{­ÈžA“ëá·ÂÀ!“V.ä+´{?mçK몠´×þ úO§ƒG®Ò+éâÁ6Ø _whU`!µåSóÿDf+é¹ä¹18hø˜ÒnX5‡éŸ÷ËÛ°¼rk)+5ü½à. ЭÞû¬p6Û5e¢6粑ä…;t›äÎëþ›Gq©"f¬eÉ"[ÁÄCñÓuÿÓêÈFIVÎ#ŒÑRÚ”ì׎±G÷ºèòÚ.v¼{ýèÑõ@1eR\2òºC£i5-WŽª²ÔŽÅ«ƒ‡t}§@ºuOÏ´ê7ôð§²!}M"\Зðï‚À*eÔ¢O‰åšÎ¿ùžÙ!œÝ¥à>¡ëV¾›­u[PµølI0uGž u`Ò¼–…c*µíËwûÙ´b#Á\ % ^ # 0ˆ/ U!N· w 4 z Ò— i x mz ~‘ Æ ÆÕ Æ›Æa 0 D'Nkm¬uE!Õ#UNøø„FFF¤ÊnnpïïïïïïïïïïÁ____b                                     0 ë(((( B 0¤0 D5Ô D- 0K6 6 AS ÆÔ 0¤š! 0D>" A«‚"˜HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6ÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0»Î}-s (`£ª$¡¡Ñ€.ÑÑ8€½­»»d»»d8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  Ó(í€"  Z6Times New Roman Regular9‚±,entìॠ˜C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ tÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€petition€does€not€inform€us€of€the€final€disposition€of€the€re„written€charge.€€However,€Mr.€WilliamsððsÐ ° Ðpetition€alleges€he€was€punished€only€on€the€extortion,€contraband,€and€unauthorized€financial€transaction€charges.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5‚Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5„Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5…Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó  ¢Ý ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔMr.€Williamsððs€motion€for€summary€judgment€was€filed€after€the€grant€of€the€motion€to€dismiss.€€Unless€or€untilÐ ° Ðthe€trial€court€set€aside€its€order€dismissing€the€case,€the€trial€court€was€without€authority€to€award€summary€judgmentÐ tÄ Ðto€Mr.€Williams. ËÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€contraband€at€issue€was€cologne,€after€shave,€and€similar€toiletry€items.(ÈhH  Z‹6Times New Roman Regular zÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòTesteróó,€our€Supreme€Court€confirmed€the€existence€of€a€middle€standard€of€ð ðheightenedðð€scrutiny,€but€theÐ ° Ðcase€before€us€does€not€fall€within€those€situations€justifying€such€scrutiny.€€òòTesteróó,€879€S.W.2d€at€828. šÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔRecognizing€that€the€unique€requirements€of€prison€life€necessarily€involve€the€loss€by€prisoners€of€many€rightsÐ ° Ðafforded€to€unincarcerated€citizens,€the€Court€established€the€minimal€constitutional€requirements€that€must€be€met€inÐ tÄ Ðprison€disciplinary€proceedings€where€a€protected€liberty€interest€is€implicated.€€In€such€situations,€a€prisoner€is€minimallyÐ 8ˆ Ðentitled€to€prior€written€notice€of€the€charges,€an€opportunity€to€present€witnesses€when€not€hazardous€to€institutionalÐ üL Ðsafety€and€goals,€an€impartial€decision€maker,€and€a€written€statement€as€to€the€evidence€relied€on€and€the€reason€for€theÐ À Ðaction€taken.€òò€Wolffóó,€418€U.S.€at€564„66,€94€S.€Ct.€at€2978„80,€41€L.€Ed.€2d€at€955„57. wÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€the€Supreme€Court€determined€that€thirty€days€was€a€brief€period.€€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€515€U.S.€at€483„85,€115Ð ° ÐS.€Ct.€at€2300„01,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€429„31. fÝ ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔAlthough€the€right€to€personal€liberty€is€fundamental,€that€right€is€not€implicated€after€a€person€is€convictedÐ ° Ðof€a€crime€and€the€only€issue€is€the€manner€of€service€of€the€sentence€imposed.€€òòState€ex€rel.€Stewart€v.€McWherteróó,€857Ð tÄ ÐS.W.2d€875,€877€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1992).€€Mr.€Williams€forfeited€his€fundamental€right€to€personal€liberty€when€heÐ 8ˆ Ðcommitted€the€underlying€offense€for€which€he€was€convicted€and€sentenced. ·Ý ƒR{Y$ÝÓ  Óà  àòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»ÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔEven€prison€regulations€which€discriminate€on€the€basis€of€suspect€classifications€will€be€upheld€if€the€unequalÐ ° Ðtreatment€is€ð ðessential€to€prison€security€and€discipline.ðð€€òòHudson€v.€Palmeróó,€468€U.S.€517,€523€104€S.Ct.€3194,€3198,Ð tÄ Ð82€L.€Ed.€2d€393,€401€(1984).- ù-(|G2{Y$¤¤Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÝ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  ÚóóÔ€ôæÕò»»Ô d(|3 i$££Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÝ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝVVVV)ÿÿ!dxdx)!ÈÈÈÈdxdx( ±þ$’’ò òFigure€Ú  Ú1Ú  Úó ó^_X`YEþÿ<<CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3 i$¢¢Ý ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÝ»»dXXdì8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó óX[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿCÿÿ HKKKKÝ ƒ£ª!ÝÑ€.ÑÑ8€PÝ»»ddÈ8ÑÑ ý ÑÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÔ€¼PÝ»»»ÔÑ8€QXXdì»»d8ÑÑ  Ñà@ü ü ìàÔ‡îDLPÝÔIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@kk$ìàAT€NASHVILLEÔ#†¼PÝ»îîDL #ԈРÖ& ÐÓ  ÓAssigned€on€Briefs€August€2,€2001Ð üL ÐÔ‡XQX»¼PÝÔÌò òÔ#†¼PÝ»XXQþ#ÔLARRY€WILLIAMS€v.€TENNESSEE€DEPARTMENT€Ð úJ ÐOF€CORRECTIONÔ‡XQX»¼PÝÔó óÐ  ^ ÐÌà@@½½ìàò òAppeal€from€the€Chancery€Court€for€Davidson€CountyÐ  ^ Ðà@@øøìàNo.€00„1154„I€€€€€€Irvin€H.€Kilcrease,€Jr.,€ChancellorÐ ú J ÐÌÌà@@ìì*ìàßA€V) °°` d€÷E<½` AßÐ ¾  ÐÌà@@TTìàNo.€M2000„02905„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV€„€Filed€August€28,€Ô_Ô2002Ô_ÔÐ ¹  ÐÌßA€V) °°` dE<` AßÐ ‘á  Ðó óÌÓ  ÓPetitioner,€a€state€inmate,€appeals€the€trial€courtððs€decision€to€deny€his€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€commonÐ ŒÜ Ðlaw€writ€of€certiorari€challenging€the€imposition€of€sanctions€following€a€disciplinary€board€hearingÐ xÈ Ðand€the€courtððs€grant€of€the€Department€of€Correctionððs€Motion€to€Dismiss€for€failure€to€state€aÐ d´ Ðclaim.€€He€alleges€that€the€Department€failed€to€follow€disciplinary€policies,€and€violated€his€dueÐ P  Ðprocess€and€equal€protection€rights.€€For€the€reasons€set€forth€below,€we€find€Petitionerððs€claimsÐ <Œ Ðwithout€merit,€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€and€remand€the€case€for€any€further€proceedingsÐ (x Ðwhich€may€be€necessary.€€Ð d ÐÓÜÓÌò òTenn€R.€App.€P.€3€Appeal€as€of€Right;€Judgment€of€the€Chancery€CourtÐ ì< ÐAffirmed€and€Remandedó óÐ Ø( ÐÌòòÓ  ÓÔ#†¼PÝ»àXQ#ÔÔ‡XQX.¼PÝÔPatricia€J.€Cottrell,€J.óó,€delivered€the€opinion€of€the€court,€in€which€òòBen€H.€Cantrell,€P.J.,€M.S.,óóÐ ° Ðand€òòWilliam€C.€Koch,€Jr.,€J.óó,€joined.Ð œì ÐÌLarry€Williams,€Pikeville,€Tennessee,€Pro€Se.Ð t Ä ÐÌPaul€G.€Summers,€Attorney€General€and€Reporter;€Michael€Moore,€Solicitor€General;€Pamela€S.Ð L"œ! ÐLorch,€Assistant€Attorney€General;€for€the€appellee,€Tennessee€Department€of€Correction.Ð 8#ˆ" ÐÓ˜ÓÌò òOPINIONó óÔ#†¼PÝ»XXQÇ#ÔÔ‡XQX»¼PÝÔÐ %` $ ÐÌòòóóÔ#†¼PÝ»XXQ #ÔÓ  ÓÔ€XQX»¼PÝÔà  àThis€case€involves€a€òòpro€seóó€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€filed€by€a€stateÐ è&8"& Ðprisoner.Ð Ô'$#' ÐÌÓ  ÓI.€€FactsÐ ¬)ü$) ÐÓ/ ÓÌà  àAppellant€Larry€Williams€is€an€inmate€in€the€custody€of€Tennessee€Department€of€CorrectionÐ „+Ô&+ Ðwho€seeks€review€of€actions€taken€against€him€by€the€Disciplinary€Board€at€Southeastern€TennesseeÐ p,À', ÐState€Regional€Correctional€Facility€in€Pikeville€(ð ðthe€boardðð).€€The€disciplinary€actions€at€issue€wereÐ \-¬(-ý Ðimposed€after€the€board€found€Mr.€Williams€guilty€of€extortion,€possession€of€contraband׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×,€andÐ ° Ðunauthorized€financial€transactions.Ð œì ÐÌà  àTaking€the€allegations€of€Mr.€Williamsððs€petition€as€true,€as€we€must€on€a€motion€to€dismiss,€Ð tÄ ÐòòMcClenahan€v.€Cooleyóó,€806€S.W.2d€767,€768€(Tenn.€1991),€the€following€facts€are€alleged.€€Mr.Ð `° ÐWilliams€was€placed€in€segregation€pending€the€investigation€of€the€disciplinary€charges.€€Six€daysÐ L œ Ðlater,€he€received€disciplinary€reports€for€the€charges.€€A€hearing€was€held€the€next€day€on€theÐ 8 ˆ Ðunauthorized€financial€transactions€and€drug€selling€charges.€€He€was€sanctioned€with€a€writtenÐ $ t Ðwarning€on€the€unauthorized€financial€transactions€charge,€and€the€drug€selling€charge€was€dismissedÐ  ` Ðfor€a€ð ðre„writeðð€based€on€the€fact€that€the€report€alleged€the€incorrect€charge.׃ T×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Eleven€days€later,€theÐ ü L  Ðhearing€on€the€extortion€and€contraband€charges€was€held.€€Mr.€Williams€was€found€guilty€andÐ è 8  Ðsentenced€on€the€extortion€charge€to€ten€(10)€days€in€segregated€confinement,€but€was€given€creditÐ Ô$  Ðfor€time€served€in€segregation€pending€the€hearing€and,€on€the€contraband€charge,€was€sentenced€toÐ À  Ðfive€(5)€days€in€segregation,€but€was€given€credit€for€time€served.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àAfter€exhausting€administrative€remedies€by€appealing€the€board€decision€to€both€the€wardenÐ „Ô  Ðand€commissioner,€Mr.€Williams€filed€a€petition€for€writ€of€certiorari€in€Davidson€County€ChanceryÐ pÀ ÐCourt.€€The€petition€alleged€that€the€Department€had€violated€various€Departmental€policiesÐ \¬ Ðregarding€procedure€for€disciplinary€proceedings€and,€therefore,€had€denied€him€due€process€andÐ H˜ Ðequal€protection€of€the€law.Ð 4„ ÐÌà  àMr.€Williams€sent€numerous€discovery€requests€to€the€State€who€responded€by€requesting€Ð  \ Ðan€extension€of€time€in€which€to€answer€the€discovery.€€The€court€granted€that€request€and,€in€theÐ øH Ðmeantime,€the€State€filed€a€Motion€to€Dismiss€pursuant€to€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€for€failure€toÐ ä4 Ðstate€a€claim.€€The€trial€court€granted€the€Motion€to€Dismiss€the€petition,€stating:Ð Ð  ÐÌà8  àPetitioner€asserts€that€the€Board€violated€his€procedural€due€process€rights.€€WhenÐ ¨ø Ðdetermining€whether€a€due€process€violation€has€occurred,€the€court€must€firstÐ ”ä Ðidentify€the€existence€of€a€protected€right.€€In€òòSandin€v.€Conneróó,€115€S.€Ct.€2293,€132Ð €Ð ÐL.€Ed.€2d€418€(1995),€the€Supreme€Court€held€that€a€liberty€interest€is€only€createdÐ l¼ Ðwhen€prison€procedures€impose€atypical€and€significant€hardship€on€the€inmate€inÐ X ¨ Ðrelation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.€€The€òòSandinóó€court€concluded€that€theÐ D!” Ðplacement€of€an€inmate€in€punitive€segregation€was€not€such€a€deprivation€that€wouldÐ 0"€  Ðentitle€the€inmate€to€due€process€protections.€€òòIdóó.;€òòSee€also€E.L.€Reid€v.€Sundquistóó,Ð #l! ÐNo.€01A01„9709„CH„00494,€1998€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€144€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Feb.€27,Ð $X" Ð1998).€€Here,€petitioner€received€a€written€reprimand€in€addition€to€ten€(10)€days€timeÐ ô$D # Ðserved€and€five€(5)€days€time€served.€€Thus,€it€is€the€opinion€of€this€court€that€theÐ à%0!$ Ðrestrictions€placed€on€the€petitioner€did€not€impose€such€atypical€and€significantÐ Ì&"% Ðhardships€on€the€petitioner€such€as€to€create€a€liberty€interest€that€would€invoke€dueÐ ° Ðprocess€requirements.€€Therefore,€after€careful€consideration€of€all€the€evidence€in€theÐ œì Ðrecord€this€court€is€of€the€opinion€that€respondentððs€motion€should€be€granted.€€Ð ˆØ ÐAccordingly,€petitionerððs€petition€is€dismissed.ÐtÄÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAfter€this€judgment,€Mr.€Williams€filed€a€motion€for€summary€judgment.€€He€then€filed€aÐ L œ Ðmotion€to€reinstate€the€writ€of€certiorari€and€to€withdraw€the€courtððs€memorandum€and€orderòòóó€enteredÐ 8 ˆ Ðearlier.€€The€trial€court€reviewed€the€motions€and€held€that€the€courtððs€order€dismissing€the€petitionÐ $ t Ðfor€failure€to€state€a€claim€remained€proper€and€correct.€€Ð  ` ÐÌà  àMr.€Williams€appeals€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€and€presents€the€following€issues€onÐ è 8  Ðappeal:€(1)€whether€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€denying€Mr.€Williamsððs€motion€for€summary€Ð Ô$  Ðjudgment׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×;€and€(2)€whether€the€trial€court€was€correct€in€granting€the€motion€to€dismiss€the€petitionÐ À  Ðfor€failure€to€state€a€claim.€€We€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€for€the€reasons€set€forth€below.€Ð ¬ü  йÓ  ÓII.€€Standard€of€ReviewÐ „Ô  ÐÌÓº"Óà  àA€Tenn.€R.€Civ.€P.€12.02(6)€motion€to€dismiss€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€reliefÐ \¬ Ðcan€be€granted€tests€only€the€legal€sufficiency€of€the€complaint,€not€the€strength€of€the€petitionerððsÐ H˜ Ðproof.€€òòCook€v.€Spinnakerððs€of€Rivergate,€Inc.óó,€878€S.W.2d€934,€938€(Tenn.€1994).€€The€basis€for€theÐ 4„ Ðmotion€is€that€the€allegations€contained€in€the€complaint,€considered€alone€and€taken€as€true,€areÐ  p Ðinsufficient€to€constitute€a€cause€of€action.€€òòIdóó.€€In€resolving€the€issues€in€this€appeal,€we€are€requiredÐ  \ Ðto€construe€the€complaint€liberally€in€the€plaintiffððs€favor€and€take€the€allegations€of€the€complaintÐ øH Ðas€true.€€òòBell€v.€Icard,€Merrill,€Cullins,€Timm,€Furen,€and€Ginsburg,€P.A.óó,€986€S.W.2d€550,€554Ð ä4 Ð(Tenn.€1999).€€Our€standard€of€review€on€appeal€from€a€trial€courtððs€ruling€on€a€motion€to€dismissÐ Ð  Ðis€òòde€novoóó,€with€no€presumption€of€correctness€as€to€the€trial€courtððs€legal€conclusions.€€òòStein€v.Ð ¼  ÐDavidson€Hotel€Co.óó,€945€S.W.2d€714,€716€(Tenn.€1997).€€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àThe€scope€of€our€review€is€also€defined€by€the€procedural€vehicle€Mr.€Williams€correctlyÐ €Ð Ðutilized€to€assert€his€claim,€the€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari.€€òòRhoden€v.€State€Depððt.Ð l¼ Ðof€Corr.óó,€984€S.W.2d€955,€956€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1998)€(citing€òòBishop€v.€Conleyóó,€894€S.W.2d€294Ð X ¨ Ð(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994))€(The€proper€procedural€vehicle€for€a€prisoner€seeking€review€of€a€disciplinaryÐ D!” Ðaction€of€the€Department€of€Correction€is€by€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari.)€€Under€suchÐ 0"€  Ða€petition,€a€courtððs€review€of€administrative€agency€decisions€is€very€limited.Ð #l! ÐÌà  àòòóóð ðThe€common€law€writ€of€certiorari€is€not€available€to€test€the€intrinsic€correctness€of€the€lawÐ ô$D # Ðor€facts€of€a€particular€case.ðð€€òòYokley€v.€Stateóó,€632€S.W.2d€123,€126€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1981).€€BecauseÐ à%0!$ Ðthe€intrinsic€correctness€of€the€decision€of€the€lower€tribunal€is€not€subject€to€judicial€review,€òòPowellÐ Ì&"% Ðv.€Parole€Eligibility€Review€Bd.óó,€879€S.W.2d€871,€873€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1994),€the€scope€of€reviewÐ ¸'#& Ðis€generally€limited€to€a€determination€of€whether€the€administrative€body€acted€within€itsÐ ° Ðjurisdiction€or€acted€arbitrarily,€capriciously,€or€illegally.€€òòCooper€v.€Williamson€County€Bd.€of€Educ.óó,Ð œì Ð746€S.W.2d€176,€179€(Tenn.€1987).€€In€òòCooperóó,€the€Supreme€Court€explained,€ð ðThe€scope€of€reviewÐ ˆØ Ðunder€the€common€law€writ€does€not€ordinarily€extend€to€a€redetermination€of€the€facts€found€by€theÐ tÄ Ðadministrative€body.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€Ð `° ÐÌÓ  ÓIII.€€Due€ProcessÐ 8 ˆ ÐÓ½.ÓÌà  àA€claim€of€denial€of€due€process€must€be€analyzed€with€a€two„part€inquiry:€(1)€whether€theÐ  ` Ðinterest€involved€can€be€defined€as€ð ðlibertyðð€or€ð ðpropertyðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€Due€ProcessÐ ü L  ÐClause;€and,€if€so€(2)€what€process€is€due€in€the€circumstances.€€òòBoard€of€Regents€v.€Rothóó,€408€U.S.Ð è 8  Ð564,€571„73,€92€S.€Ct.€2701,€2706„07,€33€L.€Ed.€2d€548,€557„59€(1972).€€Deprivation€of€an€interestÐ Ô$  Ðwhich€is€neither€ð ðlibertyðð€nor€ð ðpropertyðð€does€not€trigger€the€procedural€safeguards€of€the€DueÐ À  ÐProcess€Clause.€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àIn€òòWolff€v.€McDonnellóó,€418€U.S.€539,€94€S.€Ct.€2963,€43€L.€Ed.€2d€935€(1974),€having€foundÐ „Ô  Ða€liberty€interest€in€accumulated€good€time€credits€created€by€state€statute,€the€United€States€SupremeÐ pÀ ÐCourt€nonetheless€held€that€ð ðprison€disciplinary€proceedings€are€not€part€of€a€criminal€prosecution,Ð \¬ Ðand€the€full€panoply€of€rights€due€a€defendant€in€such€proceedings€does€not€apply.ðð€€òòIdóó.€418€U.S.€atÐ H˜ Ð556,€94€S.€Ct.€at€2975,€41€L.€Ed.€2d€at€951€(citing€òòMorrissey€v.€Breweróó,€408€U.S.€471,€488,€92€S.€Ct.Ð 4„ Ð2593,€2603,€53€L.€Ed.€2d€484,€498€(1972)).׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€While€the€emphasis€in€òòWolffóó€was€on€the€ð ðbalancing€ofÐ  p Ðprison€management€concerns€with€prisonersðð€liberty€in€determining€the€amount€of€process€dueðð€andÐ  \ Ðnot€on€the€definition€of€liberty€interests€protected€by€the€Due€Process€Clause,€€òòSandinóó,€515€U.S.€atÐ øH Ð478,€115€S.€Ct.€at€2297,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€425„26,€the€discussion€of€liberty€interests€in€òòWolffóó€€includedÐ ä4 Ða€determination€that€the€Due€Process€Clause€itself€did€not€create€a€liberty€interest€in€accumulatedÐ Ð  Ðcredits€for€good€behavior.€€òòWolffóó,€418€U.S.€at€557,€94€S.€Ct.€at€2975,€41€L.€Ed.€2d€at€951.Ð ¼  ÐÌà  àSubsequent€to€òòWolffóó,€the€Court€took€the€opportunity€to€treat€more€fully€the€issue€of€protectedÐ ”ä Ðliberty€interests€in€the€prison€context.€€òòMeachum€v.€Fanoóó,€427€U.S.€215,€96€S.€Ct.€2532,€49€L.€Ed.Ð €Ð Ð2d€451€(1976).€€In€òòMeachumóó,€the€Court€considered€whether€transfer€to€a€different€prison€with€lessÐ l¼ Ðfavorable€conditions€could€only€be€accomplished€by€procedure€which€complied€with€òòWolffóó.€€TheÐ X ¨ ÐCourt€specifically€rejected€ð ðthe€notion€that€òòanyóó€grievous€loss€visited€upon€a€person€by€the€State€isÐ D!” Ðsufficient€to€invoke€the€procedural€protections€of€the€Due€Process€Clause.ðð€€€òòMeachumóó,€427€U.S.€atÐ 0"€  Ð224,€96€S.€Ct.€at€2538,€49€L.€Ed.€2d€at€458.€€The€Court€continued:Ð #l! ÐÌà8  àSimilarly,€we€cannot€agree€that€òòanyóó€change€in€the€conditions€of€confinement€havingÐ ô$D # Ða€substantial€adverse€impact€on€the€prisoner€involved€is€sufficient€to€invoke€theÐ à%0!$ Ðprotections€of€the€Due€Process€Clause.€€The€Due€Process€Clause€by€its€own€forceÐ ° Ðforbids€the€State€from€convicting€any€person€of€a€crime€and€depriving€him€of€hisÐ œì Ðliberty€without€complying€fully€with€the€requirements€of€the€Clause.€€But€given€aÐ ˆØ Ðvalid€conviction,€the€criminal€defendant€has€been€constitutionally€deprived€of€hisÐ tÄ Ðliberty€to€the€extent€that€the€State€may€confine€him€and€subject€him€to€the€rules€of€itsÐ `° Ðprison€so€long€as€the€conditions€of€confinement€do€not€otherwise€violate€theÐ L œ ÐConstitution.Ð8 ˆÐ Ð  ÐÌòòIdóó.Ð  ` ÐÌà  àThe€court€found€that€confinement€within€any€of€the€Stateððs€prisons€was€ð ðwithin€the€normalÐ è 8  Ðlimits€or€range€of€custody€which€the€conviction€has€authorized€the€State€to€impose.ðð€€òòIdóó.€427€U.S.Ð Ô$  Ðat€225,€96€S.€Ct.€at€2538,€49€L.€Ed.€2d€at€459.€€Consequently,€there€was€no€liberty€interest€arisingÐ À  Ðfrom€the€Due€Process€Clause€itself.òòóó€€Ð ¬ü  ÐÌà  àBecause€ð ð[Ô_Ôl]awfulÔ_Ô€incarceration€brings€about€the€necessary€withdrawal€or€limitation€of€manyÐ „Ô  Ðprivileges€and€rights,ðð€òòJones€v.€North€Carolina€Prisoners€Labor€Unionóó,€433€U.S.€119,€125,€97€S.€Ct.Ð pÀ Ð2532,€2537,€53€L.€Ed.€2d€629,€638€(1977)€(citing€òòPrice€v.€Johnstonóó,€334€U.S.€266,€285,€68€S.€Ct.Ð \¬ Ð1049,€1060,€92€L.€Ed.€1356,€1369€(1948)),€the€Due€Process€Clause€itself€does€not€give€rise€to€aÐ H˜ Ðprotected€liberty€interest€in€freedom€from€deprivations€which€are€an€expected€part€of€incarcerationÐ 4„ Ðafter€conviction.€€In€òòÔ_ÔHewittÔ_Ô€v.€Helmsóó,€459€U.S.€460,€103€S.€Ct.€864,€74€L.€Ed.€2d€6757€(1983),€theÐ  p ÐCourt€determined€that€the€Due€Process€Clause,€standing€alone,€did€not€confer€a€liberty€interest€toÐ  \ Ðavoid€administrative€segregation,€by€finding€that€there€was€no€constitutional€liberty€interest€inÐ øH Ðfreedom€from€state€action€taken€ð ðwithin€the€sentence€imposed.ðð€€òòIdóó.€459€U.S.€at€468,€103€S.€Ct.€atÐ ä4 Ð869,€74€L.€Ed.€2d€at€685.€€In€òòÔ_ÔHewittÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€recognized€that€prisoners€retain€only€ð ðthe€most€basicÐ Ð  Ðliberty€interestsðð€and€determined€that€remaining€in€the€general€population€was€not€one€of€those€basicÐ ¼  Ðinterests.€€òòIdóó.€459€U.S.€at€467„68,€103€S.€Ct.€at€869,€74€L.€Ed.€2d€at€685.€Ð ¨ø ÐÌà  àIn€òòÔ_ÔMeachumÔ_Ô€óóandòò€Ô_ÔHewittÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€€recognized€that€states€may€create€interests€which€triggerÐ €Ð Ðthe€procedural€protections€of€the€Due€Process€Clause,€pointing€out€that€the€liberty€interest€in€òòWolffóóÐ l¼ Ðhad€its€roots€in€state€law.òò€€óóThis€state„law€source€of€liberty€interests€was€the€basis€of€the€CourtððsÐ X ¨ Ðjurisprudence€regarding€due€process€in€prison€settings€until,€in€1995,€the€Supreme€Court€abandonedÐ D!” Ðthe€prior€language„driven€methodology€because€that€methodology€had€shifted€the€focus€of€the€inquiryÐ 0"€  Ðaway€from€the€nature€of€the€deprivation.€òò€Ô_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€515€U.S.€at€480„82,€115€S.€Ct.€at€2298„99,€132€L.Ð #l! ÐEd.€2d€at€426„28.€€Such€analysis€ð ðstrayed€from€the€real€concerns€undergirding€the€liberty€protectedÐ $X" Ðby€the€Due€Process€Clause.ðð€€òòIdóó.€515€U.S.€at€483,€115€S.€Ct.€at€2300,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€429.€€InÐ ô$D # ÐòòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€the€Court€determined€it€was€time€to€return€ð ðto€the€due€process€principles€we€believe€wereÐ à%0!$ Ðcorrectly€established€in€òòWolffóó€and€òòÔ_ÔMeachumÔ_Ôóó.ðð€€òòIdóó.€€While€recognizing€that€states€may,€under€certainÐ Ì&"% Ðcircumstances,€such€as€that€presented€in€òòWolffóó,€create€liberty€interests,€the€Court€found:Ð ¸'#& ÐÌà8  àBut€these€interests€will€be€generally€limited€to€freedom€from€restraint€which,€whileÐ )à$( Ðâ ânot€exceeding€the€sentence€in€such€an€unexpected€manner€as€to€give€rise€to€protectionÐ |*Ì%) Ðby€the€Due€Process€Clause€of€its€own€force,€.€.€.€nonetheless€imposes€atypical€andÐ ° Ðsignificant€hardship€on€the€inmate€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.МìÐ Ð  Ðâ âÌòòIdóó.€515€U.S.€at€484,€715€S.€Ct.€at€2300,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€429€(citations€omitted).Ð tÄ ÐÌà  àIn€its€opinion€in€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ô,€óóthe€Court€stated€that€the€caseòò€óópresented€the€first€opportunity€for€itÐ L œ Ðto€address€the€issue€of€whether€disciplinary€confinement€of€inmates€itself€implicates€constitutionalÐ 8 ˆ Ðliberty€interests.€€òòIdóó.€515€U.S.€at€486,€115€S.€Ct.€at€2301,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€431„32.€€The€prisoner,€òòóóMr.Ð $ t ÐConner,€had€been€sanctioned€for€a€disciplinary€infraction€by€confinement€in€punitive€segregation€forÐ  ` Ðthirty€days.€€The€Court€found€no€substantive€difference€between€the€conditions€of€disciplinaryÐ ü L  Ðsegregation€and€the€conditions€of€administrative€segregation€or€protective€custody.€€The€CourtÐ è 8  Ðconcluded€that€because€the€prisonerððs€confinement€ð ðdid€not€exceed€similar,€but€totally€discretionaryÐ Ô$  Ðconfinement€in€either€duration€or€degree€of€restrictionðð€the€punitive€segregation€ð ðdid€not€work€aÐ À  Ðmajor€disruption€in€his€environment.ðð€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€515€U.S.€at€486,€115€S.€Ct.€at€2301,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€atÐ ¬ü  Ð431.€€òòóóBased€on€its€findings€that:€(1)€Mr.€Connerððs€disciplinary€segregation€did€not€present€an€atypical,Ð ˜è  Ðsignificant€deprivation€and€(2)€the€sanctions€would€not€inevitably€affect€the€duration€of€his€sentence,Ð „Ô  Ðthe€court€held€ð ðNeither€the€Hawaii€prison€regulations,€nor€the€Due€Process€Clause€itself,€affordedÐ pÀ ÐConner€a€protected€liberty€interest€that€would€entitle€him€to€the€procedural€protections€set€forth€inÐ \¬ ÐòòWolff.óóððòò€€Ô_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€515€U.S.€at€487,€115€S.€Ct.€at€2302,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€432.Ð H˜ ÐÌà  àWhile€the€Court€did€not€preclude€the€possibility€of€the€Due€Process€Clause€giving€rise€on€itsÐ  p Ðown€to€a€protected€liberty€interest,€it€made€it€clear€that€those€situations€would€be€rare€and€that€Mr.Ð  \ ÐConnerððs€disciplinary€segregation€was€not€a€ð ðdramatic€departureðð€from€ordinary€prison€confinementÐ øH Ðand€was€within€the€expected€parameters€of€a€criminal€sentence.€€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€515€U.S.€at€485„86,€115€S.Ð ä4 ÐCt.€at€2301,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€430„31.Ð Ð  ÐÌà  àThe€United€States€Court€of€Appeals€for€the€Sixth€Circuit€has€found€that,€under€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€aÐ ¨ø Ðprison€disciplinary€proceeding€does€not€give€rise€to€a€protected€Fourteenth€Amendment€libertyÐ ”ä Ðinterest€unless€it€affects€the€duration€of€the€prisonerððs€confinement€or€the€restrictions€impose€anÐ €Ð Ðatypical€and€significant€hardship€on€the€inmate€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.òò€Ð l¼ ÐÔ_ÔMackeyÔ_Ô€v.€Dykeóó,€111€F.3d€460,€463€(6th€Cir.€1997).€€An€inmate€ð ðhas€no€liberty€interest€in€remainingÐ X ¨ Ðfree€of€disciplinary€segregation€because€such€segregation€does€not€impose€an€atypical€Ô  ÔÔ& Ø Ôhardship€.€.€.Ð D!” Ð.ððÔ'ØD!ßZÔ€òòMcKinley€v.€Ô_ÔBowlenÔ_Ôóó,€8€Fed.€Ô_ÔAppxÔ_Ô.€488,€492,€2001€U.S.€App.€LEXIS€8743,€at€*6€(6th€Cir.€May€1,Ð 0"€  Ð2001)€(citingòò€Ô_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó€and€òòÔ_ÔMackeyÔ_Ôóó).€€Absent€allegations€of€such€an€atypical€hardship,€a€prisoner€cannotÐ #l! Ðsustain€his€claim.€€òòJones€v.€Bakeróó,€155€F.3d€810,€812„13€(6th€Cir.€1998).Ð $X" ÐÌà  àThus,€disciplinary€segregation€for€brief€periodsÔ_Ô׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ô_Ô€is€within€the€expected€parameters€of€suchÐ à%0!$ Ðincarceration€and€does€not€implicate€a€constitutionally€created€liberty€interest.€€A€state„law„basedÐ Ì&"% Ðliberty€interest€can€only€be€created€where€the€deprivation€imposes€an€atypical€and€significantÐ ¸'#& Ðhardship€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.€€òòÔ_ÔSandinÔ_Ôóó,€515€U.S.€at€484,€715€S.€Ct.€atÐ ¤(ô#' Ð2300,€132€L.€Ed.€2d€at€429.€€Absent€those€factors,€no€liberty€interest€exists€and€the€proceduralÐ ° Ðrequirements€of€Due€Process€do€not€apply.Ð œì ÐÌà  àMr.€Williams€alleges€that€the€sanctions€given€by€the€disciplinary€board€included€ten€(10)€daysÐ tÄ Ðtime€served€on€the€extortion€charge,€five€(5)€days€time€served€on€the€contraband€charge,€and€a€writtenÐ `° Ðwarning€on€the€unauthorized€financial€transaction€charge.€€When€we€accept€the€facts€as€alleged€byÐ L œ ÐMr.€Williams€as€true,€the€punishments€imposed€on€him€do€not€constitute€an€ð ðatypical€and€significantÐ 8 ˆ Ðhardship€on€the€inmate€in€relation€to€the€ordinary€incidents€of€prison€life.ðð€òòIdóó.,€515€U.S.€at€483„85,Ð $ t Ð115€S.€Ct.€at€2300„01,€132€L.€Ed.€2d.€At€430„31.€€The€imposition€of€15€days€of€punitive€segregationÐ  ` Ðon€multiple€charges€is€not€the€type€of€punishment€that€has€been€held€to€trigger€the€limited€dueÐ ü L  Ðprocess€rights€afforded€to€prisoners.€€Mr.€Williams€has€not€presented€facts€which€show€that€he€wasÐ è 8  Ðentitled€to€the€limited€due€process€rights€of€òòWolffóó,€and€the€trial€court€correctly€dismissed€his€petitionÐ Ô$  Ðfor€failure€to€state€a€claim.Ð À  ÐÌÔ‡XQXXXQÔà  àHaving€determined€that€Mr.€Williams€possesses€no€liberty€interest€in€freedom€fromÐ ˜è  Ðplacement€in€segregation,€we€also€find€that€he€has€failed€to€state€a€claim€for€issuance€of€the€commonÐ „Ô  Ðlaw€writ€of€certiorari€on€the€basis€the€board€or€the€Department€acted€illegally.€€òòWillis€v.€Tenn.€Dept.Ð pÀ Ðof€Corr.óó,€No.€M2000„01397„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2002€Tenn.€App.€LEXIS€389,€at€*45„*46€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.Ð \¬ ÐJune€5,€2002)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed)€(holding€that€the€scope€of€the€due€processÐ H˜ Ðprotections€define€the€ððessential€requirements€of€the€law,ðð€for€writ€of€certiorari€purposes,€in€prisonÐ 4„ Ðdisciplinary€proceedings);€òòÔ_ÔAhkeenÔ_Ô€v.€Campbellóó,€No.€M2000„02411„Ô_ÔCOAÔ_Ô„R3„CV,€2001€Tenn.€App.Ð  p ÐLEXIS€815,€at€*14„*16€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€Nov.€2,€2001)€(no€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€11€application€filed).€Ð  \ ÐThus,€Mr.€Williamsððs€claim€that€the€board€acted€illegally€by€violating€various€policies€regardingÐ øH Ðprocedure€for€disciplinary€proceedings€does€not€state€a€claim€for€relief€under€the€common€law€writÐ ä4 Ðof€certiorari.€Ô#†XQXXXQÁd#ÔÐ Ð  ÐÌÓ  ÓIV.€€Equal€Protectionà @¸ àÐ ¨ø ÐÓ7jÓÌà  àIn€his€petition€for€common€law€writ€of€certiorari,€Mr.€Williams€also€alleges€that€he€wasÐ €Ð Ðdenied€equal€protection€of€the€law.€€Specifically,€in€an€affidavit€attached€to€his€petition,€he€allegesÐ l¼ Ðthat€ð ð[he]€was€denied€equal€protection,€whereas€report€#398564€(Ô_ÔUFTÔ_Ô)€and€#398557€(Contraband)Ð X ¨ Ðwere€prepared€and€served€six€(6)€days€after€employee€observed€the€violation,€and€other€inmates€atÐ D!” ÐÔ_ÔDSNFÔ_Ô€who€received€reports€more€than€24€hours€after€employee€observed€the€violation,€had€theirÐ 0"€  Ðreports€dismissed.ððÐ #l! ÐÌà  àThe€Tennessee€State€Constitutionððs€equal€protection€provisions€provide€ð ðessentially€the€sameÐ ô$D # Ðprotectionðð€as€the€equal€protection€clause€found€in€the€United€States€Constitution.€€òòTennessee€SmallÐ à%0!$ ÐSch.€Sys.€v.€Ô_ÔMcWherterÔ_Ôóó,€851€S.W.2d€139,€152€(Tenn.€1993).€€While€equal€protection€requires€thatÐ Ì&"% Ðsimilarly€situated€persons€be€treated€the€same€under€the€law,€or€that€the€state€treat€persons€under€likeÐ ¸'#& Ðcircumstances€and€conditions€the€same,€òòÔ_ÔGenescoÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€Woodsóó,€578€S.W.2d€639,€641€(Tenn.€1979),Ð ¤(ô#' Ðòòsuperseded€on€other€grounds€by€Combustion€Ô_ÔEngððgÔ_Ô,€Inc.€v.€Jacksonóó,€705€S.W.2d€655€(Tenn.€1986);Ð )à$( ÐòòÔ_ÔJaamiÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔConleyÔ_Ôóó,€958€S.W.2d€123,€126€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1997),€ð ð[Ô_Ôt]heÔ_Ô€Fourteenth€AmendmentÐ |*Ì%) Ðguarantees€equal€laws,€not€equal€results.ðð€€òòPersonnel€Ô_ÔAdmððrÔ_Ô€of€Mass€v.€Ô_ÔFeeneyÔ_Ôóó,€442€U.S.€256,€273,Ð h+¸&* Ð99€St.€Ct.€2282,€2293,€60€L.€Ed.€2d€870,€884€(1979),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ô,€Ô_ÔFeeneyÔ_Ô€v.€Personnel€Ô_ÔAdmððrÔ_Ô€of€Mass.óó,€445Ð ° ÐU.S.€901,€100€S.€Ct.€1075,€63€L.€Ed.€2d€317€(1980).Ð œì ÐÔ‡XQXXXQÔÌà  àEqual€protection€challenges€are€based€upon€governmental€classifications.€€The€analysis€forÐ tÄ Ðequal€protection€challenges€involves€the€application€of€differing€standards€depending€upon€the€effect.€Ð `° ÐThat€analysis€requires€strict€scrutiny€only€when€the€classification€interferes€with€a€€fundamental€rightÐ L œ Ðor€operates€to€the€peculiar€disadvantage€of€a€suspect€class,€òòState€v.€Testeróó,€879€S.W.2d€823,€828Ð 8 ˆ Ð(Tenn.€1994),€however,€a€standard€of€reduced€scrutiny€applies€in€other€situations,׃×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€requiring€only€thatÐ $ t Ða€rational€basis€exist€for€the€classification,€or€that€the€classification€have€a€reasonable€relationshipÐ  ` Ðto€a€legitimate€state€interest.€€òòIdóó.Ð ü L  ÐÌà  àUnless€a€suspect€classification€or€denial€of€a€fundamental€right€to€a€particular€class€isÐ Ô$  Ðinvolved,€equal€protection€attacks€on€prison€regulations€are€analyzed€to€determine€whetherÐ À  Ðdistinctions€between€groups€have€a€rational€basis,€or,€more€particularly,€whether€they€are€reasonablyÐ ¬ü  Ðrelated€to€Ô_ÔpenologicalÔ_Ô€interests.€€òòLee€v.€Youngóó,€No.€99„6012,€2000€U.S.€App.€LEXIS€28068,€at€*6Ð ˜è  Ð(6th€Cir.€Nov.€6,€2000)€(citing€òòWilliams€v.€Laneóó,€851€F.2d€867,€877€(7th€Cir.€1988));€òòÔ_ÔRawlsÔ_Ô€v.Ð „Ô  ÐÔ_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€929€F.€Supp.€284,€289€(M.D.€Tenn.€1996),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ôóó,€òòÔ_ÔRawlsÔ_Ô€v.€Ô_ÔSundquistÔ_Ôóó,€No.€96„5931,€1997Ð pÀ ÐU.S.€App.€LEXIS€9606€(6th€Cir.€Apr.€28,€1997).׃*×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú7Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMr.€Williams€does€not€attack€any€statute€or€regulation€as€an€unconstitutional€classification,Ð 4„ Ðbut€rather€upon€an€allegation€of€unequal€exercise€of€the€discretion€granted€prison€officials€by€statuteÐ  p Ðand€disciplinary€policies.Ð  \ ÐÔ#†XQXXXQXs#ÔÔ‡XQXXXQÔÌà  àAbsent€an€allegation€of€interference€with€a€fundamental€right€or€discriminatory€treatmentÐ ä4 Ðbased€on€suspect€classification,€a€plaintiff€cannot€maintain€an€equal€protection€claim€because€he€orÐ Ð  Ðshe€was€treated€differently€from€others€alleged€to€be€similarly€situated.€€òòÔ_ÔBooherÔ_Ô€v.€U.S.€PostalÐ ¼  ÐServiceóó,€843€F.2d€943,€944€(6th€Cir.€1988).€€In€òòÔ_ÔBooherÔ_Ôóó,€a€discharged€probationary€employee€allegedÐ ¨ø Ðhe€was€ð ðsingled€outðð€for€discharge€and€other€probationary€employees€with€worse€attendance€recordsÐ ”ä Ðwere€not€similarly€discharged.€€òòId.€€óóThe€Sixth€Circuit€held€that€as€a€probationary€employee€theÐ €Ð Ðplaintiff€had€no€property€interest€in€continued€employment.€€The€court€further€held:Ð l¼ ÐÌà8  àÔ_ÔBooherÔ_Ô€seeks€to€make€out€a€violation€of€equal€protection€by€claiming€he€was€treatedÐ D!” Ðdifferently€from€other€similarly€situated€employees.€€Fatal€to€this€allegation€is€the€factÐ 0"€  Ðthat€there€is€no€claim€that€Ô_ÔBooherÔ_Ô€was€victimized€because€of€some€suspectÐ #l! Ðclassification,€which€is€an€essential€element€of€an€equal€protection€claim.€€EvenÐ $X" Ðassuming€there€was€an€unjustified€action€taken€against€Ô_ÔBooherÔ_Ô€this€single€action,Ð ô$D # Ðwithout€more,€cannot€form€the€basis€of€an€equal€protection€claim.Ðà%0!$Ð Ð  ЇòòIdóó.€€The€court€reiterated€that€the€equal€protection€concept€does€not€create€a€classification€of€personsÐ ° Ðwho€received€better€treatment.€€òòIdóó.€€In€other€words,€an€equal€protection€claim€does€not€arise€simplyÐ œì Ðbecause€of€differing€treatment.Ð ˆØ ÐÌà  àThis€reasoning€has€been€applied€in€the€context€of€a€prisoner€challenging€the€disciplinaryÐ `° Ðinfraction€of€ð ðcreating€a€disturbanceðð€and€the€resulting€punishment€upon€a€finding€of€guilt€by€theÐ L œ Ðdisciplinary€board.€€òòEl„Amin€v.€Ô_ÔTireyÔ_Ôóó,€817€F.€Supp.€694,€697€(W.D.€Tenn.€1993),€òòÔ_ÔaffððdÔ_Ôóó,€1994€U.S.Ð 8 ˆ ÐApp.€LEXIS€22118€(6th€Cir.€Aug.€16,€1994).€€Ô#†XQXXXQv|#ÔÔ‡XQXXXQÔAfter€first€determining€that€the€prisoner€did€not€haveÐ $ t Ða€constitutionally€protected€liberty€interest,€the€court€held€that€ð ða€prison€inmate€cannot€make€out€anÐ  ` Ðequal€protection€violation€merely€by€alleging€that€other€inmates€were€treated€differently.€€He€wouldÐ ü L  Ðhave€to€demonstrate€that€he€was€ððvictimized€because€of€some€suspect€classification,€which€is€anÐ è 8  Ðessential€element€of€an€equal€protection€claim.ððððòò€€Idóó.€at€700;€òòsee€also€Ô_ÔNewellÔ_Ô€v.€Brownóó,€981€F.2d€880Ð Ô$  Ð(6th€Cir.€1992),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€510€U.S.€842,€114€S.Ct.€127€(1993).Ô#†XQXXXQ/†#ÔÔ‡XQXXXQÔ€€In€other€words,€a€prisoner€allegingÐ À  Ðselective€enforcement€of€a€prison€regulation€cannot€sustain€an€equal€protection€claim€absent€assertionÐ ¬ü  Ðand€showing€of€some€purposeful€discrimination.€€òòFletcher€v.€Ô_ÔChartrandÔ_Ôóó,€869€F.2d€1490€(6th€Cir.Ð ˜è  Ð1989)€(citing€òòÔ_ÔMcCleskeyÔ_Ô€v.€Kempóó,€481€U.S.€279,€109€S.Ct.€1756,€95€L.€Ed.€2d€262€(1987)).€€OneÐ „Ô  Ðisolated€incident€of€uneven€enforcement€does€not€establish€purposeful€discrimination.€€òòFletcheróó,€869Ð pÀ ÐF.2d€at€1490.Ð \¬ ÐÌà  àMr.€Williams€has€not€alleged€he€was€treated€more€harshly€than€others€because€he€was€aÐ 4„ Ðmember€of€a€suspect€class׃ ×Ý ƒ#ÃÝòòÚ  Ú8Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€or€a€victim€of€purposeful€discrimination€and,€therefore,€he€has€failed€toÐ  p Ðstate€a€claim€for€denial€of€equal€protection.€€We€also€note€that€Mr.€Williams€was€given€credit€for€theÐ  \ Ðtime€served€in€administrative€segregation€before€the€hearing.Ð øH ÐÔ#†XQXXXQ‰#ÔÌà@‘‘#ìàV.€€ConclusionˆÐ Ð  ÐÌà  àAccordingly,€we€affirm€the€decision€of€the€trial€court€dismissing€the€petition€for€common€lawÐ ¨ø Ðwrit€of€certiorari€for€failure€to€state€a€claim€upon€which€relief€could€be€granted€and€remand€the€caseÐ ”ä Ðto€the€trial€court€for€any€further€proceedings€which€may€be€necessary.€€The€costs€of€the€appeal€areÐ €Ð Ðtaxed€to€appellant,€Larry€Williams,€for€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.€€Ð l¼ ÐÌÌÌà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à___________________________________€Ð #l! Ðà  àà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àPATRICIA€J.€COTTRELL,€JUDGEÐ $X" Ð