1 The petit ion does not describe t

he status of

this defen

dant, but th

e address given f

or the defendant

indicates that she i s in someway connect ed with Whitevil

le Correctional

Facility at Whitevill

e, Tennessee. 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKS ON On-Brief August 24, 2001
EMM ETT K. DU NLA P v. N ANC Y DA VIS, ET AL 

### . A Direct Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County No. 9370 The Honorable Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W2001-00894-COA-R3-CV - Filed October 18, 2001

Plaintiff-inmate, acting pro se, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to review a judgment of the general sessio

ns court dismissing

his case. The tria

l court denied pla

intiff’s petiti

on and he appeals. We affi

rm. Tenn.R.App.P. 3; A

ppeal as of Right; Judgm ent of the Circuit C

ourt Affirmed and Remanded
W. Frank Crawford, P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which A LAN 

### E. H IGHERS 

### , J. and D AVID 

### R. F ARMER 

### , J., joined. Emmett K. Dunlap, Pr

o Se Tom Anderson, Jackson, For Appellees, Nancy Davis, et al


### OPINION
Plaintiff, Emmett K. Dunlap, appeals t he tria l court’ s order de

nying his peti tion for writ of certio rari. The only

issue f or revie w is whether

the trial court

erred i n denying

the peti tion.
On March 13, 20 01, pla intiff filed h is petitio n fo r wri t of cer tiorar i in the Circuit

Court of Hardeman County nami ng as de fendants N ancy Davis, et al 1 and General Sessions Cour

t for Hardeman County, Tennes s ee. Al though the pet

ition is some what incohere

nt and di sjoint

ed, we perceive that it alleges that plaintiff previously filed a suit in gener al sessi ons court a

gainst defendant Davis concerning a dispute involving his inmate account statement. I t appear s that the general sessionssuit was dismis sed, and,according to plaintiff’s brief, it appears t hat the dismissal occurred on March 12, 2000. The record r

eflect s that no a

ppearance

was made by

the defendants in the case at bar, and the trial court entered an order di smissing the peti tion on March 2 2, 2001. Al though pla

intif f sets out

### -2-

two issues f

or revie w in his br

ief, we percei

ve the issue to be as stated: “Whether the trial court erred in dismissing the petition for writ of certiorari. ”
We should first commen t on plaintiff’s ple adings and the bri ef fi led in th is court . As we have previously noted the pleadings are very difficult to understa nd and the sa

me holds tr

ue for plaintiff’s brief. While parties who represent themselves are en titled to fair and equal treatment, they a re not excused from comp lying with appl icable sub stantive an d proced ural law. See Irvi n v. Cityof Clarksville , 767 S.W .2d 649 (T enn. Ct. Ap p. 1988). Pro se litigants are en titl ed to t he same liberality of const

ruction wi

th rega rd t o their pleading that any litigant is afforded, pursuant to Tennessee Rules of Ci

vil Proce dure. I n our review of the trial court’s pro ceeding, we have attempted to give great liber

ality to plainti

ff’s pleadings.
The writ of certiorari

is an extraordinary remedy whos e issuanc e is wit hin the di scretion of the tri al court , and it is not available as a matter of right. Robinson v. Traughber , 13 S.W.3d 361 (Tenn. Ct. A pp. 1999 ).
Unless we f

ind an abus e of dis cretion by the t rial c ourt, we must aff irm. The

abuse of discret ion “standard req uires us to consider (1) wh ether the decision has a su fficient evidentiary foundation, (2) whether the trial court corr ectly identifi

ed and properly applied the appropriate legal principles, and (3) whether t he decision is within the range of acceptable al ternatives.” State ex rel. Vaughn v. Kaat

rude , 21 S.W.3d 24 4, 248 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p. 2000).
In plaintiff’s g

eneral sessions suit, he was affor ded the absolute the right to appeal the general sessionsjudgment within ten (10 ) days of the rendition thereof for a trial de novo in the circuit court. T.C.A. § 27-5-108 (a

)(c) (2000). Ther

efore, he resor ts to a pe

tition for wri t of certiorari to as a substitute for appeal. Certiorari cannot be resorted to as a substit ute for appeal except when a case is made in the

petiti on that t he appeal wa s defeat

ed by ei ther (1) by the op

pressive or erroneous

act of the court, (2) by

the will ful or neglig ent act o f the cl

erk, (3) by the c ontrivanc e or procur ement of the adverse pa

rty; (4) by

inevi table ac cident, or (5) by the blameless misfortune of the petitioner. McMurry v. Milan , 32 Tenn. 176 (18 52); Uselton v. Price , 4 1 Tenn. App. 1 34, 292 S.W.2d 7 88 (1956); General Mo tors Acceptance C orp. v. Dennis , 675 S.W.2d 4 89 (Tenn. Ct. App . 1984).
In the inst

ant case, plainti ff has made no all

egati on as to why

his right of appeal for a trial de
novo was defeated. Conside ring the length of time between the dismissal of his general sessions case and fili ng a peti tion for writ of certiorari, plai

ntiff’s lack

of diligence might be involved. I f so, then neglect on the part of petitioner is not a ground to grant the writ of ce rtiorari. See General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Dennis, supra at 491.
Acco rding ly, the trial court’s order denying pla inti ff’s petition for writ of certiorari is affi rmed. The case is remanded to the trial court for such further procee dings as may b e nece ssary. Cost s of ap peal a re asse ssed agains t the p etitio ner/a ppel lant, E mme tt K. D unla p, and his su rety.

### -3- __________________________________ ________ W. FRAN K CRAWFORD, PRESIDI NG JUDGE , W.S

.