# FILED

Novemb er 19, 1997 Cecil W. Crowson Ap pellate Cou rt Clerk 

## IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE

ALEXANDER FRIEDMANN, ) ) Plaintiff /Appella nt, )

) ) Davidson Chancery VS. ) No. 96-3848-III ) ) Appeal N o. CHARLES BASS, et al., ) 01A01-9707- CH-00331 ) Defenda nts/Appell ees. )

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE THE HONORABLE ELLEN HOBBS LYLE, CHANCELLOR

For the P laintiff/

Appellant : For the Defendants/Appellees : Alexander Friedmann, Pro Se John Knox Wa lkup Attorney General and Reporter Michael E. Moore Solicitor General Sohnia W. Hong Assistant Attorney General



## AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

WILLIAM C. KOCH , JR., JU DG E1 Tenn. Ct. A pp. R. 10(b ) provide s: The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a fo rmal opinion would have no precedential value. When a case is decided by memorandum

opinion it shall be designated “MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall notbe publish

ed, and s hall not be cited or relied on for any reason in a subsequent unrelated case.
2 The Department of Correction’s administra t ive policies define “making an unauthorized financial transaction” as “[t]he selling, borrowing or lending of goods (whether monies or property) or service s betwee

n inmates o

r betwee n inmates a

nd free -world pe

rsons. The enter

in g i nto any financial obligation between inmates or between inmates a nd free -world

people without the consent of the warden .” (underlining in the original). -2-



## MEMORANDU M OPINION

This appeal inv olves a pri son discip linary proceedin g. Af ter being f ound guilty of engaging in an unautho rized mone tary tra nsaction, the prisone

r filed a petition for common-law writ of

certior ari in the Chancer y Court for

Davidson C ounty alleging that the disc iplinary proceeding violated his due process rights. The trial court granted the prison

officia ls’ motion f

or summary j udgment and dismissed th e petition on the ground t

hat the pet

itioner had faile d to make out a due proc ess claim as a matter of law. Weaffirm

the summa

ry judgment

in accord ance wit

h Tenn. C t. App. R. 10(b). 1

I.
Alexander

Friedma nn was tra

nsferre d from the

South Cent

ral Corr ectio na l Center to the Lake County Regional Correction al Facility on August 28, 1996. On September

18, 1996, p rison offi cials cha rged him with engaging in an unauthorized financial transact

ion 2 after the discovery of a postal mail order bearing his name that had been made payable to another prisoner at the South Central Correctional Center.
A di sci plinary board convened at the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility on Septemb er 20, 1996 . After wa iving his rights to the presence of a reportingofficia

l and to cal l witnesse s on his own behalf, Mr. Friedmann explained to the board t

hat his gra

ndmother ha

d sent the m ail order

to the inma

te without

his knowledge

to pay for

the postage necessary to mail the personal property he had left atthe South C entral Co rrection al Center . The boa rd found Mr . Fried

mann guilty of the disciplina

ry offens e and gave him a wri tten war ning and orde

red him to f

orfeit the3 Mr. Friedman n assert s that the board also deducted eight days of his prisoner sentence reduction credits; however , the pris on offic ials insist t hat th ey d id not, and the record contains no evidence indicating that they did.

4 Arnold v. Tennessee Bd. of Paroles , App. No. 01S01-9610-CH-00210, 1997 WL 693708, at *2 (Tenn. Nov. 10, 1997). -3- money order. 3
After exh a usting his appeals within the Department of Correction, Mr. Friedma nn filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County asserting that th e prison of ficials ha d denied his due proces s rights by (1) finding him guilty of a d isciplinar y infract ion without e vidence, (2) by conducting a disciplin ary hear ing atthe Lake

County Regi onal Corr

ectional F acility when the allege d offense occurre d at the South Centra l Correc ti onal Center, (3) b y preventinghim from c alling witnesse s who could have prove d his innocen ce, and (4) by imposing punishme nt t hat was e xcessively harsh. T

he trial c ourt grant

ed the prisonofficials’ motion for summary judgment after finding that Mr. Friedma nn had not demonstrated that the discipl inary proc eedings had imposed on

him any “atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.”
II.
The only vehicle for seek ing judicial rev iew of a prison disc iplinary pr

oceeding is a petition f

or common -law w rit of certiorar i. See Bishop v. Conley , 894 S.W .2d 294, 296 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 ap plicati on filed); Snodgrass v. Noles , App. N o. 02C01-9 403-CC-00 0 37, 1994 WL 328762, at * 1 (Tenn. Crim

. App. July 8, 1994) (No Te nn. R. A pp. P. 11 applicati on filed). These proceedin gs permit co urts to rev iew a disc iplinary pr oceeding o n ly to deter

mine whether the discipl inary bo ar d exceede d its jurisdi ction or ac ted illega lly, fraudule ntly, or arbitraril y. The c our ts will not grant rel ief if the decision be ing reviewedwas arr

ived at in a

constitution a l and lawfu l manner. See Arnold v. Tennessee Bd

. of Paroles , ___ S.W.2d ___, ___ (Tenn. 1997); 4 Powell v . Parole Eligibilit y Revie w Bd. , 879 S.W.2d 871, 873 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
Mr. Friedmann asserts that the disciplinary proceedi ngs he was subjected to in this case violated his procedural due proce ss righ ts. In or der to pre vail with t

hese claims, he must demonstrate t hat the con duct of

prison officials has imposed atypical-4-

and significa

nt hardships on him that a re not ordi narily inc ident t o prison life. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 4 8 4, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). Prison disciplinary proceedings are within the expected parameters of aprison sent ence and are an ordinary part of pris on life. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U. S. at 485, 115 S. Ct. at 2301.
We fin d nothing arbitrary or fundamentally improper in the decision to conduct Mr. Friedman n’s d isciplinary hearing at the Lake County Regional Correctional Facility where he

was in carc erated. Likewise, there is no evidence that Mr. Friedma nn was unfa

ir ly pr evented f

rom presenting favorable witn esses bec ause he signed a written waiver

of this rig ht to prese nt witness es. The disciplinary board had before it sufficient circumstantial evidence t o supp ort a conclusion that Mr. Friedma nn had be en inv olved in an un authorize d financia l transac tion, and t

he punishmen t me ted out by the board was consistent with the applicable disciplinary regulation s. Accordi ngly, we concur w ith the tr

ial court ’s decisio n to summar ily dismiss Mr. Friedma

nn’s petiti on.
III.
We affirm

the summa

ry judgment

dismiss in g Mr. Fr

iedmann’s petition an d remand the case to the trial court for whatever other proce edings may b e require d. We also tax the

costs of thi s appeal to Alexander Friedma nn for whi ch execut

ion, if necessary, may issue.

_________________ ____________ WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE CONCUR:

_________________

________________ HENRY F. TODD, PRESIDING JUDGE MIDDLE SECTION

_________________

________________ SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE