### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE Jul y 14, 200 5 S es sio n
JA M ES LE ST ER

QU A LL S v. R A N D Y C A M P , in h is o ff ic ial c ap ac it y as Com m issio ner of P ersonnel and Execut ive Secr etary of t he C ivil Service Comm is si on , ET AL 

### .
Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 03-2108-I R ichard H. Dink ins, Ch ancellor

No. M2004- 01005-COA-R 3-CV - F iled October 27, 2005

Petitioner, J ames L ester Q ualls, appea led the decision of the Civil S ervic e Commissi on, which had
ov e rtur ne d th e Ad min ist

rativ e L a w J ud g e ’s de c isi on a nd re ins ta te d the De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio ns ’ disciplinary

actions aga inst Mr. Qualls. Upon determining that the Civi l Service Commission had failed to make written finding s for revie w, the chanc ery court vacated the order and re manded the matter to the Civil Service Commission for findings. Mr. Qualls filed a motion to alter or amend the judg ment to include an a war d of attorne y ’s fe es. The c hance ry court g rante d the motion and
awa rded attorney ’s fe es pursua nt to 42 U. S

. C . § 1988. The Civil Service Commission and De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio ns fi le d a

mot ion to a lte r o r am e nd in ch a nc e ry c ou rt a ndno w a

pp e a l to thi s Court, asserting this action does not fit within 42 U.S.C . § 1988 and, alternatively , the attorne y ’s fe es awa rd is unrea sonable. We dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; D ism iss e d

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J . and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter , and Eug enie B. Whitesell, Senior Counsel, for the Appellants, Randy

Camp, in his official ca

pacity as Commissi oner of Personnel and E x ecutive Secre tary of the Civil Service C o m m i s s ion, and Quentin White, in his official ca pacity as Commi ssioner of the T ennesse e De partment of Corr ection.

L arry D. Woo ds , N a sh vil le , T e nn e sse e , f or the app e lle e , Jam e s L e ste r Q ua lls

. OP IN ION This appea l conce rns only the proprie ty

and re asonable n es s o f an award of attorney ’s fe es under 42 U .S.C. § 1988. I n Aug ust 2001 , t h e Tennessee Depa rtment of Corre ctions (“the Depa rtment”) disc iplined Petiti oner, L t. J ames L ester Q ualls (Lt. Qualls) for g ross misconduct-2-

ste mmi ng fr om the a lle g e d fa lsi fi c a tio n of an of fi c ia l doc ume nt re la tin g to f ir e arm s q ua lif

ic a tio ns

. Th e Dep art me nt d e mot e d Lt. Q ua lls fr om l ie ute na nt t o c or re c tio na l se rg e a nt andtr a ns fe rr e d h im from the Turney

Center Industrial Prison in Only , Tenne ssee, wher e he had wor ked for twenty -seve n y ear s, to the T en n essee Prison for Women in Nashville, Tennesse e. The Commi ssioner of Correc tions reviewe d the m atter and further demoted L t. Qualls to the rank of cor rec tional office r and tra nsfer

red him to Way ne County Boot Camp in Clifton, Tennessee

.
I n September 2002, the matter wa s hear d by an adminis trative law judge (“A LJ ”), w ho set
a sid e the dis c ipl ina

ry me a su re s. I n its de ta ile d or de r, the AL J d e te rm ine d th a t a lth ou g h Lt. Q ua lls had committed misconduct, t he mi sconduct was not g ross misconduct under Rule 1120- 1-.01(45) of the Rul e s o f the De pa

rt me nt o f P e rs on ne l. Th e AL J als o f ou ndthat th e De pa

rt me nt h a d f

a ile d to follow the civil servic e prog ressive discipline sy stem as set forth in Tenne ssee Code Annotated § 8- 3-330. It further

found t h at t h e De partment ha d failed to c onsider Lt. Qualls’ past conduc t and excellent work re cord; that it had failed to take the e x tenuating circ umst an ce s surrounding the misconduct into acc ount; and that it did not follow the discipline imposed on another e mploy ee w ho had committed essentially the same of

fen s e. T h e Department appe aled to the Civil Service Commi ssion (“the Commission”) , wh i ch hea rd the matter

in J une 2003. The Commi ssion
ov e rtur ne d the de c isi on of the AL J andor de re d Lt. Q ua lls be de mot e d f ro m li e ute na nt t o s e rg e a nt.

Lt. Q ua lls fi le d a n a

pp e a l of the Com mis sio n’ s d e termi nat ion in the Da vid so n Co un ty Chance ry Court in J uly 2003. I n his petition, L t. Qualls asserte d that the Commiss ion’s actions we re arb itr ary , ca

pr ic iou s, abu siv e , a ndun su pp orte d b y ma te ri a l a ndsu bs ta nti a l e vid e nc e . Lt. Q ua lls a lso
asserted that the De partment ha d failed to follow statutory require ments reg arding prog ressive discipline. I n his orig inal petition to the chanc ery court, Lt. Qualls pray ed for reinstateme nt, back pay , benef

its, and rea sonable a ttorney ’s fe es p u rs u an t to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1988, et. seq. In Oc tob e r 2 00 3, he a me nd e d h is p e tit ion to i nc lud e a n a sse rt ion that th e Commis sio n h a d f a ile d to comply with Tennesse e Code Annota ted §§§ 4-5-314, 4- 5-315, and 8- 30-328.

The c hancer yfound the Commission had failed to include c onclusions of law a nd policy
re a so ns fo r i ts d e c isi on a s r e qu ir e d b y Te nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d § 4- 5- 31 4. Th e c ou rt he ld tha t it was ther efor e unable to review the matter in a ccor dance with T ennesse e Code Annotated § 4- 5-322. I t acc ording ly

vacated the Commissi on’s orde r and r emande d the ca se to the Commi ssion f or further proce eding s and entry

of a f inal order in compliance w ith § 4-5-314.

On Febru ar y

4 , 2 0 0 4 , Lt. Q u a ll s f

il e d a mo ti o n to a lt e r

o r a me n d r e q u e s ti n g th a t th e c ourt
a me ndits orde r t o in c lud e re a so na ble a tto rn e y ’s fe e s p ur su a nt t o 4 2 U .S. C. § 19 88 . M r. Qu a lls ’
a tto rn e y su bmi tte d f

e e s o f $ 14 ,9 20 ba se d o n a rate of $4 00 pe r h ou r. I n the ir

re sp on se to L

t. Q ua lls ’ motion, the Com mission and Department (here inafter , collectively , “Respondents” or “A ppellant s”)
arg ue d th a t a n a wa

rdof a tto rn e y ’s fe e s u nd e r 42 U.S .C

. § 198 8 w a s n ot a pp ro pria te be c a us e Lt. Qu a lls ha d n ot p re va ile d, a s r e qu ir e d b y the statut e , w he re the c a us e ha d b e e n r e ma nd e d f or fi nd ing s. They further asserted t hat attorney ’s fees were not war rante d under the statute beca use t he trial court had not found a

deprivation of rig hts under color of state law . Respondents also opposed the
rea sonablene ss and amount of the r equeste d awa rd. They submitt ed that the rate of $400 pe r hour-3-

wa s u nr e a so na

ble in tha t it

do e s n ot r e fl e c t th e pr e va ili ng mark e t r a te f or civ il rig hts lit ig a tio n in Tenne ssee, a nd that it was an inappr opriate r ate f or this pa rticular type of case

. The trial c ourt found the ra te re quested to be r easona ble and on Marc h 25, 2004, awa rded L t. Qualls’ attorne y ’s fe es of $14,920 based on a n hourly rate of $400. Respondents filed a motion to alter or amend on April 1, 2004, and alternati v el ysoug ht entry of an or der making the awa rd of attorney ’s fe es a f inal judge ment pursuant to Rule 54.02 of the Te nnessee Rules of Civil P roce dure. On April 22, 2004, Re sp on de nts fi le d th e ir

mot ion to a

pp e a l to thi s Co urt.
Pursuant to Rule 13(b) of the Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e, thi s Court is required to deter mine whether

it has subject matter jurisdiction to revie w this matter. Subject matter jurisdiction concerns the authority of the c ourt to hear a matter and cannot be waive d. Meighan v

. U.S. Sprint Communications Co. , 924 S.W .2d 632, 639 (Tenn. 1996). Subject matter jurisdiction
ma y be c on sid e re d b y

the c ou rt su a s

po nte

. Ru

ff v . S tat e , 978 S.W .2d 95, 98 (Tenn. 1998) ; Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b).
Upon re view of the rec ord, we find that Respondents’ Apr i l 1 , 2 004, motion to alter or amend, whic h Respondents filed befor e filing their notice of appea l to this Court, was not disposed of by the tr ia l c ou rt

. Al tho ug h, in h is b ri e f t o th is C ou rt , M r. Qu a lls a sse rt s Re sp on de nts ’ A pr il 1 motion was later withdra wn, we f ind nothing in the re cord to indica te that Respondents withdrew their motion to alter or a mend. Appellants do n o t i nclude their motion to alter or amend in the Statement of the Case contained in their brief to this Court, but assert this matter is be fore us as an appea l of rig ht pursuant to Rules 3 and 4 of the Te nnessee Rules of Appellate Procedur e and Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 4-5- 323.

I t appea rs from the rec ord that Respondents’ motion to alter or amend is still pending be fore the tr ia l c ou rt . A s lon g a s the re is a tim e ly mot ion to a lte r o r ame ndpe nd ing be fo re the tr ia l c ou rt , there is n o f

in a l ju d g me n t f

o r r e v ie w b y th is Co u r t u n d e r Ru le 3 ( a ) o f th e T e n n e s s e e Rules of Appellate Proc edure

. Evans v. W ilson , 776 S.W. 2d 93 9, 94 2 (T e nn . 1 98 9) . A c c or din g ly , w e dis mis s thi s a pp e a l f or la c k o f s ub

je c t matte r j urisd ic tio n. Cos ts a re ta xedto Appellants, Randy

Camp, in his official ca pacity as Commissi oner of

Personnel and E x ecutive Secr e ta r y o f th e Ci v il Se r v ic e Co mm is s io n a n d Q u e n ti n Wh it e , in h is o f f ic ia l c ap a c ity as Com mis sio ne r o f t

he Te nn e sse e De pa

rt me nt o f C or

re c tio ns

.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE