IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs March 8, 2012

JAMES LAFAYETTE MOORE v. TURNEY CENTER DISCIPLINARY

BOARD, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Hickman County

No. 08345C Timothy L. Easter, Chancellor

No. M2011-01193-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 7, 2012

This is a certiorari proceeding in which an inmate seeks review of a disciplinary board

proceeding that found him guilty of assault on another inmate. Petitioner asserts that the

manner in which the disciplinary proceeding was conducted violated Tennessee Department

of Correction policies. Finding no error, we affirm the decision of the trial court.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

RICHARD H. DINKINS, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT,

JR. and ANDY D. BENNETT, JJ., joined.

James Lafayette Moore, Henning, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Joseph F. Whalen, Associate Solicitor

General; and Lee Pope, Office of the Attorney General General, for the appellee, State of

Tennessee.

OPINION

This case comes before this Court for the second time. James Moore, an inmate

presently incarcerated at West Tennessee State Penitentiary, filed a Petition in the Hickman

1

County Chancery Court for a common law writ of certiorari, seeking review of the action of

the Turney Center Disciplinary Board (the “Board”) in finding him guilty of assaulting

another inmate. The petition alleged that the members of the disciplinary board, the warden

and the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Corrections (“TDOC”) acted

 The events giving rise to this proceeding occurred while Mr. Moore was incarcerated at Turney 1

Center Industrial Facility. 
arbitrarily and illegally in finding him guilty and that their action violated various TDOC

policies and Mr. Moore’s rights to due process of laws. The action was dismissed for

Petitioner’s failure to comply with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805; this Court reversed the

dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Moore v. Turney Center

Disciplinary Board, et. al., No. M2009-01056-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 1404444 (Tenn. Ct.

App. Apr. 7, 2010).

The writ of certiorari was issued and the Department filed the certified record of Mr.

Moore’s conviction. On May 12, 2011, the court entered its order dismissing the case for

failure to state a claim for relief; Mr. Moore appeals.

2

I. SCOPE OF REVIEW

The disciplinary board’s action isreviewed through the common-law writ of certiorari.

Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). Under the certiorari

procedure, the inquiry before the court is whether the board exceeded its jurisdiction or acted

illegally, fraudulently or arbitrarily; the intrinsic correctness of the decision is not reviewed

and relief will not be granted if the decision was reached in a lawful and constitutional

manner. Maney v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles, No. 01A01-9710-CV-00562, 1998 WL 755002

(Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 1998). Our review of the evidence on appeal can be no broader or

more comprehensive than the trial court’s review. Watts v. Civil Serv. Bd. for Columbia, 606

S.W.2d 274, 277 (Tenn. 1980); Jacks v. City of Millington Bd. of Zoning Appeals, 298

S.W.3d 163, 167 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009). As to issues of law, our review is de novo, with no

presumption of correctness. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d); Whaley v. Perkins, 197 S.W.3d 665, 670

(Tenn. 2006); Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87, 91 (Tenn. 1993).

II. DISCUSSION

Mr. Moore contends that the conduct of the proceeding violated provisions of TDOC

Policy 502.01, Uniform Disciplinary Procedures, in that a hearing was not held within seven

days; in the board’s handling of and reliance upon certain evidence and testimony; and in the

Board’s asserted failure to allow him to testify and call witnesses on his own behalf and to

cross-examine the board’s witnesses.

While the court stated that the petition was being dismissed for failure to state a claim, there was 2

no Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motion filed; to the contrary, both Petitioner andRespondentsfiled briefs stating

theirrespective positions relative to the certiorari petition. It is clear that the court determined that Petitioner

had not shown that the decision of the disciplinary board was arbitrary, capricious or illegal. 

-2-
A. HEARING DATE

TDOC Policy 502.01 VI(A)(6)(b) provides that a disciplinary hearing should be held

within seven calendar days of the triggering event “unless the hearing is continued pursuant

to Section VI (J).” The record of the disciplinary proceeding reflects that the incident giving

rise to the disciplinary proceeding occurred on August 21, 2008, and that the hearing was

held on September 29. The hearing was originally set for August 27; however, a

memorandum dated August 27 and signed on behalf of Mr. Moore by “J. Richardson” states

that the hearing was continued “for staff reporter.” Similarly, a memorandum dated

September 3, signed by Mr. Moore, states that the hearing set for that date was continued “at

inmate’s request to prepare a defense”; a memorandum dated September 10, signed by Mr.

Moore, states the hearing was continued “due to reporter not being present”; a memorandum

dated September 15, signed by Mr. Moore, states the hearing set on that date was continued

“for reporter”; and a memorandum dated September 22, signed by “J. Richardson, Adv.”,

states that the hearing was continued “for reporter at advisor’s request.”

As an initial matter, Mr. Moore contends in his brief that the August 27 Memorandum

is a “fraudulent document” and that Mr. Richardson was not his inmate advisor on that date;

there is an affidavit from Mr. Richardson filed on July 15, 2010 in the Chancery Court in

which he states that he was not Mr. Moore’s advisor prior to September 3, 2008. We do not

consider that the discrepancy surrounding the memorandum relative to the August 27

continuance entitles Mr. Moore to a dismissal of the charges. TDOC Policy No. 502.01 is

a comprehensive policy which governs disciplinary procedures with the purpose of providing

for “the fair and impartial determination and resolution of all disciplinary charges placed

against inmates committed to the Tennessee Department of Correction.” Central to Policy

No. 502.01 is the following statement of policy:

Fair and impartial disciplinary proceedings will be administered against

inmates charged with disciplinary infractions. The procedures contained

herein alone shall govern the disciplinary process. This policy is not intended

to create any additional rights for inmates beyond those which are

constitutionally required. Minor deviations from the procedures set forth

below shall not be grounds for dismissal of a disciplinary offense unless the

inmate is able to show substantial prejudice as a result and that the error

would have affected the disposition of the case.

TDOC Policy No. 502.01 V (emphasis added). The record shows the reason for the August

27 continuance, and there is nothing to indicate that the reason was false. Moreover, the

hearing was continued on several other occasions for the same reason; Mr. Moore makes no

complaint regarding those continuances. The record also shows that Mr. Moore requested

-3-
Counselor Cheryl Watson to be his staff advocate on August 25, and by letter dated August

27, he was advised that Counselor Watson was not available; it is likely, therefore, that the

hearing would have been continued in order for him to secure assistance. The hearing was

continued on August 27 in order to preserve Mr. Moore’s right to a fair and impartial

proceeding and he has shown no prejudice by the continuance.

With respect to the other continuances, TDOC Policy 502.01 VI(J) provides for

continuances of disciplinary hearings, with the period of continuance not to exceed seven

days; the reason for the continuance is to be documented on the memorandum form. The

policy was complied with in this case. Mr. Moore’s contention that the board violated the

policy in this regard is without merit.

B. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION

Mr. Moore contends that the hearing procedures violated TDOC Policy 502.01

VI(L)(4)(e), (f) and (g) when the board received confidential information which was not

independently verified. In his brief, Mr. Moore cites the disciplinary report dated August 3

 TDOC Policy 502.01 VI(L)(4) provides in relevant part:

3

4. The disciplinary hearing shall be conducted pursuant to the following procedures:

* * *

e. When the disciplinary hearing officer/chairperson determines that he/she

should receive testimony from a confidential source whose identity cannot

be disclosed due to either a fear of reprisal, or a breach of security

information, or determines that he/she should receive evidence of a

confidential/security sensitive nature, it shall be the responsibility of the

disciplinary hearing officer to independently access and verify the

reliability of the informant’s testimony and/or the confidential security

sensitive evidence.

f. Where the reliability of the confidential informant and/or the evidence of

security sensitive nature has not been independently verified, such

testimony or evidence shall not be considered by the disciplinary

board/hearing officer in the disposition of the disciplinary charge(s).

g. Whenever confidential information or confidential security sensitive

evidence is utilized by the disciplinary hearing officer/chairperson as a

basis for its decision, the TDOC Contemporaneous Record of Confidential

Informant Reliability, CR-3510, shall be completed to document the factual

basis for the disciplinary hearing officer’s/chairperson’s finding that the

informant and/or security sensitive evidence was reliable. At privately

(continued...)

-4-
26 as the information which came from a confidential source. The hearing summary records

that Steven Tucker, Officer Ferrell, and Sgt. Jordan were the witnesses at the hearing, in

addition to Mr. Moore, and each testified from personal knowledge. There is no indication

that the disciplinary report was introduced at the hearing or was otherwise considered by the

disciplinary board. Inasmuch as no evidence from a confidential informant was introduced

at the hearing, the procedures governing receipt of such testimony were not applicable, and

this contention is without merit.

C. WITNESS ISSUES

Lastly, Mr. Moore contends that the hearing procedures violated TDOC Policy 502.01

IV(L)(4)(c)(3), (5) and (6), asserting that he was denied the opportunity to cross examine

anywitness that testified against him, to “review all adverse documentary evidence,” and to

testify and call witnesses on his own behalf. The hearing summary states that Sgt. Jordan,

Officer Ferrell, and Steve Tucker testified at the hearing. There is no indication from the

summary that Mr. Moore sought to cross-examine either witness and was denied; rather, the

summary shows that, following the testimony of the witnesses, Mr. Moore moved for

dismissal of the charge against him. In the absence of any mention of his attempted

examination of a witness, we cannot assume that he attempted to do so and was denied the

opportunity. In this regard, we note that Mr. Moore fails to make any contention in regard

to his ability to cross-examine witnesses in the Disciplinary Report Appeal he prepared on

October 1, 2008, or the Disciplinary Report Appeal he prepared on October 27. 

The record shows that on August 27 Mr. Moore requested Steve Tucker, C. O.

Whitworth, C. C. O. Baldwin, and C. O. Ferrell as witnesses for the hearing. As noted,

Officer Ferrell and Steve Tucker testified at the September 29 hearing; there is no indication

that Mr. Moore raised an issue on September 29 with respect to the fact that C. O. Whitworth

and C. C. O. Baldwin did not testify or requested that the hearing be recessed or continued

to allow their presence. Again, Mr. Moore failed to mention this issue in either of the

Disciplinary Report Appeals noted previously.

(...continued)

3

managed facilities, the Commissioner’s designee shall also review the

confidential information and initial the form. Thisformshall be considered

confidential and kept as a non-public access record in an area designated

by the Warden.

-5-
III. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the determination by the trial court and,

consequently, affirm same.

___________________________________

RICHARD H. DINKINS, JUDGE

-6-