WPCD ^_FnrP(,g5 dt3 *jhl熝cP8 ׼`|([iGsps cLk+8+Z-e֗[u>y i;]-)4|X_V1-c`'`H&EuHuwYH$ j Ϳg-+121FώwzD4~+3JX;'k\#U)N % 0F U&Nc ^ w 4   m  - 2 0( 0D k 0 0t 0e 0SE> 0@ 0( 0  0 0 0 0 0k 0G 0  0 0 0 0f! 00" 0# 0# 0$ 0% 0w& 0I' 0( 0( 00) 0<) 0* 0>* 0v+ 0`+ 0`+ 0`K, 0`, 0` - 08k- 0- 02u. 0. 0:/ 0Y/ 0_60 0 0 0j1 0 3 B*4 D/4 D+4 05 D/6 06 067 07 0:8 0^ 9 0<h99 0aj: 0(: AM: 0N@;U6;U>;U*< ,< B8>SU>U>U>NDDHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 6,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX(i$  USUS.,("  Z6Times New Roman Regularp-s 9, "'3|x U  ##Xd#  ֡$  USUS.,شXX    2    _Mr.Woodruffattachedtwohearingsummaries:onedocumentingtheresultofthecontrabandcharge,andthe  otherdocumentingtheboardsactionontheinterferencewithofficersdutiescharge.Becauseheonlychallengeshis t placementinadministrativesegregation,onlythesecondsummaryisatissue.(Y(2֡$ i!  USUS.,  شXX    0  (#$  0   a ֡$  USUS.,شXX    4    _Inhisreplybrief,Mr.Woodruffalsochallengesthesufficiencyoftheevidencesupportingtheboardsfinding  thathewasguiltyofpossessingcontraband.First,wenotethatthecontrabandchargedidnotresultintheadministrative t segregationthatMr.Woodruffchallengesinthisappeal.Second,anallegationofsufficiencyoftheevidenceisthe 8 equivalentofanattackonthecorrectnessofthelowertribunalsdecision,andcourtsarenotauthorizedtoinquireinto L correctnessinacommonlawwritofcertiorariaction.ششTurnerv.TennesseeBd.ofParoles,993S.W.2d78,80(Tenn.  Ct.App.1999).#شش#Itistruethatششthewritisjustifiedifthereisnomaterialevidenceintherecordtosupportthefindingof  thelowertribunal.Hooverv.MetropolitanBd.ofZoningApp.,294S.W.2d900,9045(Tenn.Ct.App.1996).Mr. H  Woodruffspleadingsthemselvesindicatetherewasevidencepresentedonthecontrabandcharge.#شش#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  2;+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  0.Normal<:Definition T<AA:Definition L , 5+ ` hp x 5  5+ ` hp x 586Definition(''&H1      XXX(&H2  XXX(&H3  XXX(&H4 XXX XXX(&H5  XXX(&H6  XXX20Address8MM6Blockquote , , 5+ ` hp x 5   5+ ` hp x 5,*CITE,dl*CODEKR<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Emphasis64Hyperlink    <:FollowedHype    4go2Keyboard KR<6X9`(Courier NewK XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS<:Preformatted/%  ,Kk %#/KR<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS/%  ,Kk %#/<:zBottom of 7C(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7D(X7  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS&  d dB)1dxd'dxd<:zTop of For7F(X7  ?T%2A`Arial?7D(X7  XXXSS\  `&Times New RomanSB)2dxd0KS.SampleKR<6X9`(Courier NewKSS\  `&Times New RomanS0.Strong 8dl6TypewriterKR<6X9`(Courier NewKXXXSS\  `&Times New RomanS42Variable: 8HTML MarkupB      2 0CommentB  ԁ Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5(92$ i!  USUS.,  ($MNODA<< c(O$<6X9`(Courier New\  `&Times New Roman%2A`Arial  ֡$  USUS.,شXX    3    _Suchdeterminationmaybereviewablebythedisciplinaryboardinsomecircumstances,whomayconcuror  notconcur.Thewardenmayoverruleafailuretoapprovebytheboard.Inthatcase,thewardenmustprovidetheinmate t withadetailedwrittenexplanation._TDOC_ԀPolicy#404.10(VI)(A)(2)(f). d I ֡$  USUS.,شXX    1    _ششThetrialcourtdismissedthesuitfirstastotheindividuallynamedwardenanddisciplinaryboardchairman,  eventhoughMr.WoodruffhadamendedhispleadingstonameonlytheDepartment,stating theonlyproperpartyto t thisproceedingistheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection.#شش#ԀAlthoughneitherpartyaddressedthisissueonappeal,it 8 isimportanttonotethatthiscourthasheldtothecontrary.AccordingtoSealsv._Bowlen_,No.M199900997_COA_ԄR3 L CV,2001Tenn.App.LEXIS547,at*11(Tenn.Ct.App.July26,2001)(rehearingdeniedAug.27,2001)(noTenn.  T.App.P.11applicationfiled),thoseofficersandboardsorcommissionswhohavedecisionmakingauthoritywith  regardtodisciplinaryproceedingsareproperdefendantsunderthecommonlawwritofcertiorari,includingspecifically H  thewardenanddisciplinaryboardmembers.Inthecaseherein,thedismissalofthewardenandthechairmanofthe  \ board,however,didnotresultinthedismissalofMr.Woodruffspetition,becausetheDepartmentremainedasa   defendant.Therefore,weareabletofullyaddressthemeritsofMr.Woodruffsissuesonappeal.  i!  USUS.,  _X9HXXXRXX9H   |[OYINTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#X9HXRh#EXX9HԈ &   AssignedonBriefsAugust2,2001 L #X9HXE?# RXX9HERICT.WOODRUFFv.TENNESSEEDEPARTMENT J OFCORRECTION#X9HXR#   n @@ AppealfromtheChanceryCourtforDavidsonCounty . ~ @@No.002406IICarolMcCoy,Chancellor  j @@*AV) ` dE<` A .  @@TTNo.M200100494_COA_ԄR3CVFiledAugust28,_2002_ )  AV) ` dE<` A     _Petitioner,aninmateinthecustodyoftheTennesseeDepartmentofCorrection,filedtheunderlying  prose_petition_Ԁfor_commonlaw_Ԁwritofcertiorari,seekingreviewof___aprison_Ԁdisciplinaryboard  decisionandresultingsanctionsthathealleges_were_Ԁmadeinviolationofhisconstitutionalrights  todueprocessandequalprotectionunderthe_laws.____Specifically,Petitionerallegesthatthe p disciplinaryboardviolatedDepartmentpoliciesbynotprovidingthePetitionerwithanadequate \ statementofreasonspriortohisplacementinadministrativesegregation.Thetrialcourtdismissed H thesuitforfailuretostateaclaim.Weaffirminpart,reverseinpart,andremandthecasetothetrial 4 courtwiththedirectionthatthetrialcourtissuethewrit.  p  Tenn.R.App.P.3AppealasofRight;JudgmentoftheChanceryCourt  H  AffirmedinPart,ReversedinPartandRemanded  4   PatriciaJ.Cottrell,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichBenH.Cantrell,P.J.,M.S.,   andWilliamC.Koch,Jr.,J.,joined.  EricWoodruff,Only,Tennessee,ProSe. !  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral;Stephanie X#" R.Reevers,AssociateDeputyAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,TennesseeDepartmentof D$# Correction. 0% $   OPINION  'X"&     EricWoodruffisaninmatewhoseeksreviewofactionstakenagainsthimbytheprison (0$( disciplinaryboard( theboard)#X9HXXX9HI#X9HXXX9HԀatRiverbendMaximumSecurityInstitutioninNashville.#X9HXXX9H #X9HXXX9H )%)    +&+  |  89HXXdd8    I.Facts     AccordingtothedisciplinaryreportsfiledbyMr.Woodruffasexhibitstohispetitionfor  commonlawwritofcertiorari,Mr.Woodruffwascitedwithpossessionofcontrabandand t interferencewithofficersduties.Mr.Woodruffwasplacedinadministrativesegregationpending ` thedisciplinaryboardhearingonthecharges,pursuanttoTDOCpolicy.Aftercontinuances L  requestedbyMr.Woodruff,theboardultimatelyfoundMr.Woodruffguiltyonbothchargesand 8  sentencedhimtotwenty(20)daysofpunitivesegregationanda$4.00fineonthepossessionof $ t contrabandcharge.Asaresultofinterferingwithofficersduties,theboardfinedMr.Woodruff  ` $4.00andrecommendedtothewardenthatMr.Woodruffbeplacedininvoluntaryadministrative  L  segregation.Mr.Woodruffreceivedcreditfortimeservedinprehearingsegregationonthepunitive  8  segregationsentenceandwasultimatelyplacedininvoluntaryadministrativesegregation. $    Mr.Woodruffappealedthedecisionoftheboardtothewarden,whodeniedtheappeal.He   thenfiledapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorariintheDavidsonCountyChanceryCourt,   allegingthattheboard:(1)failedtostatethereasonforhisplacementinadministrativesegregation;   (2)illegally,fraudulently,andarbitrarilyplacedhiminadministrativesegregation;and(3)subjected p himtoharsherpunishmentthanthataccordedtosimilarlysituatedinmates.Mr.Woodruffalleged \ thattheactionsoftheboardviolatedbothhisdueprocessandequalprotectionrights.The H DepartmentfiledamotiontodismisspursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)forfailuretostatea 4 claim.  p   RelyingonSandinv.Conner,515U.S.472,115S.Ct.2293(1995),thetrialcourtgranted H theDepartmentsmotiontodismissstating: Petitionerhasnotallegedthathereceivedpunishment 4 suchaswouldconstituteanatypicalandsignificanthardshipinrelationtotheordinaryincidents   ofprisonlife.Thereforehewasnotentitledtodueprocessprotectionsunderthestandardssetforth   inSandin.ThetrialcourtdismissedMr.Woodruffsequalprotectionclaimbecausehehadfailed  tosetforthanyfactsallegingthatotherinmatesaccusedofthesameoffensesweretreateddifferently  bytheboard.Mr.Woodrufffiledatimelynoticeofappealwiththiscourt.W #  1      ׀#X9HXXX9H #X9HXXX9H  #X9HXXX9H(#X9HXXX9H 0"    II.StandardofReview    ATenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motiontodismissforfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichrelief  canbegrantedtestsonlythelegalsufficiencyofthecomplaint,notthestrengthofthepetitioners t proof.Cookv.SpinnakersofRivergate,Inc.,878S.W.2d934,938(Tenn.1994).Thebasisforthe ` motionisthattheallegationscontainedinthecomplaint,consideredaloneandtakenastrue,are L  insufficienttoconstituteacauseofaction.Id.Inresolvingtheissuesinthisappeal,wearerequired 8  toconstruethecomplaintliberallyintheplaintiffsfavorandtaketheallegationsofthecomplaint $ t astrue.Bellv.Icard,Merrill,Cullins,Timm,Furen,andGinsberg,P.A.,986S.W.2d550,554  ` (Tenn.1999).Ourstandardofreviewonappealfromatrialcourtsrulingonamotiontodismiss  L  isdenovowithnopresumptionofcorrectnessastothetrialcourtslegalconclusions.Steinv.  8  DavidsonHotelCo.,945S.W.2d714,716(Tenn.1997). $    Thescopeofourreviewisfurtherlimitedbytheproceduralvehicleappropriatelyusedto   bringthisclaim,thecommonlawwritofcertiorari.Rhodenv.StateDeptofCorr.,984S.W.2d955,   956(Tenn.Ct.App.1998)(citingBishopv.Conley,894S.W.2d294(Tenn.Ct.App.1994))   (holdingthattheproperproceduralvehicleforaprisonerseekingreviewofadisciplinaryactionof p theDepartmentofCorrectionisbypetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari).Acourtsreviewof \ anadministrativeagencysdecisionislimitedunderapetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorarito H adeterminationofwhethertheadministrativebodyactedwithinitsjurisdictionoractedarbitrarily, 4 illegally,orcapriciously.Cooperv.WilliamsonCountyBd.ofEduc.,746S.W.2d176,179(Tenn.  p 1987).Whereapetitionerchallengesthecorrectnessofthedecisionoftheboardorotherdecision  \ maker,thecommonlawwritdoesnotprovidearemedy.Powellv.ParoleEligibilityReviewBd., H 879S.W.2d871,873(Tenn.Ct.App.1994)#X9HXXX9H#X9HXXX9H;Yokleyv.State,632S.W.2d123,126(Tenn.Ct.App. 4 1981)(statingthat [_t]he_Ԁcommonlawwritofcertiorariisnotavailabletotesttheintrinsic   correctnessofthelaworfactsofparticularcase).     Inthecasebeforeus,thepetitionforwritofcertiorariwasmetwithamotiontodismiss,  pursuanttoTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6),forfailuretostateaclaimuponwhichreliefcanbegranted.  Amotiontodismissthepetitionatthisstagecanonlybegrantedifthepetitionfailstomakeany l allegationswhichjustifyreviewoftherecordunderthecommonlawwritofcertioraristandards X  becausethepetitionmerelyseeksthefilingoftherecordandjudicialreviewoftheproceedingsand D! decision#X9HXXX9H$#X9HXXX9H.Tenn.CodeAnn.279109.Apetitionercannotmerelymakeblanketallegationsthat 0"  theadministrativebodyacted arbitrarilyorcapriciouslyandbeentitledtothewrit.Iftheagency #l! orboardhasreacheditsdecisioninaconstitutionalorlawfulmanner,thenthedecisionwouldnot $X" besubjecttojudicialreview.Powell,879S.W.2dat873. $D # #X9HXXX9H(#  III.AdministrativeSegregation &"% *  Inhispetitionseekingjudicialreviewoftheactiontakenagainsthim,Mr.Woodruffalleged (#' thathewasdenieddueprocessbecausehewasnevergivenreasonsforinvoluntaryadministrative )$( segregation.Healsoassertedtheinvoluntaryadministrativesegregationwasimposedinviolation |*%) ofTDOCpolicy.Mr.Woodruffisnotappealingtheimpositionofpunitivesegregation.Mr. h+&* Woodruffallegesthatthehearingsummarycompletedbytheboardfailedtostatethereasonfor  administrativesegregationandthattheWardenhimselfnevergaveanadequatereasonfor  administrativesegregationinviolationofTDOCpolicy.Hearguesonappealthatthetrialcourt  incorrectlyfailedtoliberallyconstruethepetitioninhisfavorandtoaccepthisallegationsastrue. t X9HXXX9H  Mr.Woodruffattachedthehearingsummarythathecomplainsstatesinadequatereasonsfor L  hisadministrativesegregationplacementtohispetitionforcommonlawwritofcertiorari. #  2      #X9HXXX9H.#X9HXXX9HԀThat 8  hearingsummary#X9HXXX9H80#X9HXXX9H,completedbytheboardchairperson,underthesectionfor findingsoffactand $ t specificevidencerelieduponwhichsupportsthedecision,states: 8 @ Corporal[illegible]statesthat  ` whilesearchingWoodruffanobject/itemwasinhispocket.Herefusedtogivetheitemtothe  L  officer.Hepulledawayandran.Heflushedtheitem.Underthesectionfor dispositionanda  8  statementofreasonswhichsupportsthedecision,thesummarystates: Guiltyofinterferencewith $  officerduties.Woodruffdidnotdenythis...[illegible]...Woodruffstatesthatthisisnotserious   enoughforA.S.[administrativesegregation].#X9HXXX9H0#X9HXXX9H     BecausetheDepartmentrespondedtothepetitionwithaTenn.R.Civ.P.12.02(6)motion,   andthetrialcourtdismissedonthebasisofthatmotion,wemustassume,forpurposesofthe p motion,thatthefactsassertedbyMr.Woodruffaretrue.#X9HXXX9H3#X9HXXX9HԀMcClenahanv.Cooley,806S.W.2d767, \ 768(Tenn.1991).#X9HXXX9H{5#X9HXXX9HMr.Woodruffsprimaryconcernisthattheboardfailedtostateadequatereasons H fortherecommendationforplacementinadministrativesegregation.#X9HXXX9H6#X9HXXX9H 4 #X9HXXX9H6#X9HXXX9H  BecauseMr.Woodruffchallengestheabsenceorsufficiencyofreasonsforplacinghimin  \ administrativesegregation,thenatureofsuchsegregationandtheavailablebasesforitsimposition H mustbeconsidered.AccordingtotheDepartmentspolicies,administrativesegregationisnot 4 punishmentforadisciplinaryoffense.#X9HXXX9HV7#Perryv.Campbell,No.M199900943COAR3CV,2001   Tenn.App.LEXIS31,at*6(Tenn.Ct.App.Jan.22,2001)(noTenn.R.App.P.11application   filed)(statingthat DepartmentofCorrectionregulationsmakeclearthatadministrativesegregation  isacontrolmechanism,notadisciplinarysanction).X9HXXX9HInfact,itistreatedseparatelyfrom  disciplinaryproceduresinthosepolicies.TDOCPolicy#404.10(IV)statesthatadministrative  segregationis thenonpunitivesegregationforcontrolpurposesofinmateswhoarebelievedtobe l athreattothesecurityoftheinstitution,thewelfareofstaff,ortootherinmates.(emphasisadded). X  #X9HXXX9H:#TDOCPolicy#404.10(VI)(A)(1)states: D! 8  Administrativesegregation...isprovidedasameansofcontrolandmanagement. #l! Thislevelofsegregationisforinmateswho,becauseofconditionssurroundingtheir $X" incarceration,arebelievedtoposeseriousriskstothesecurityandgoodorderofthe $D # institutionortothesafetyofotherinmates,staff,orthecommunityandtherefore %0!$ requirecustodyandsecurityatthehighestlevel....&"%    '#&   Aninmatemaybeplacedinadministrativesegregationinoneofseveralways.Thewarden  hastheauthoritytoplaceaninmateinadministrativesegregationwhen itisbelievedthata  conditionexistsrequiringimmediateplacementinadministrativesegregationtomaintainsecurity  oftheinstitutionortoprotectthestaffand/orotherinmates.TDOCPolicy#404.10(VI)(A)(2). t Additionally,adisciplinaryboardmayrecommendtothewardenthataninmatebeplacedin ` administrativesegregationafterahearinganddisposalofachargeforadisciplinaryruleinfraction. L  Therecommendationshouldbegiventothewarden whenitisbelievedthatcontinuedpresencein 8  thegeneralpopulationmaypresentathreattosecurity,thestaff,orotherinmates.TDOCPolicy $ t #404.10(VI)(A)(3).Theprocedurethattheboardmustfollowinmakingarecommendationtothe  ` wardenforadministrativesegregationincludesthefollowing:  L  8  a.Theinmateshallbeverballyadvisedbytheboardofitsrecommendationandbe $  affordedtheopportunitytopresentastatementduringthehearing.    8  b.Theboardshallclearlystatethereason(s)fortherecommendationontheAS   PlacementReportandsendtothewardenforapproval,alongwithanypertinent   informationregardingtheoffensewhichwasavailabletotheboardatthepanel p hearing.LIBDentriesshallbecompletedasrequiredinSectionVI.(A)(2)(a)above. \ [ThatpolicyrequiresthataformentitledanAdministrativeSegregationPlacement H shallbeinitiatedbythewardenordesigneeclearlystatingthereason(s)forthe 4 recommendation.] p   8  c.Iftheboardhasassessedaperiodofpunitivesegregationfortheoffensewhich H resultedintheASplacementrecommendationbeingmade,thatperiodofpunitive 4 segregationmaybescheduledandservedconcurrentlywiththeASplacementonce   thewardenhasapprovedtherecommendation.Thedispositionshallbeclearlynoted   ontheASPlacementReport.   8  d.Confidentialinformationmaybedeletedfromtheinmatescopy,butastatement  ofreasonsfortherecommendation/actionmustbegiven.Anyreportorwritten l summarycontaininginformationwhichisconsideredconfidentialasitrelatestothe X  proceduresinSectionVI.(A)shallbesomarkedandforwardedtotheinstitutional D! internalaffairsfile....X9HXXX9H0"    TDOCPolicy#404.10(VI)(A)(3). $X" #X9HXXX9HJ#X9HXXX9H  #X9HXXX9H