### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

s F eb ru ar y 22, 200 8
M IK E S ET TL E v . TE N N ES SE E D EP A R TM EN T O F C ORR EC TI ON , e t al.

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 05-3061-II Car ol McCoy, C hancellor

No. M2007- 01781-COA-R 3-CV - F iled May 27, 2008
Appellant, a pr isoner in the custody of t he Tennessee Depa rtment of C orre ction, challeng es the trial court' s order

dismiss ing his Petition for Writ of Certiorar i. T he re cord r evea ls that the court re ache d its de c isi on

in a lawf ul m ann e r. We a ff

ir m. Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e ntof t he Cha nc e r y C our t A ffirm e d; and Rem anded
D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., delivere d the opi nion of the cour t, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined. Mike Settle, Pro Se

. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ra l and Reporter , Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor Gene ral a nd Kellena Ba ker, A ssistant Attorney

Gene ral, for

the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection.
OP IN ION Mike Settle (Appellant) is a prisoner i n t h e custody of the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Cor re c tio n ( “ TD OC ” ). On

Au g us t 14 , 1 99 9, Mr

. Se ttl e wa s tr ans po rt e d fr om the Ha rd e man Co un ty Correc tional Fac il i ty

to the J ackson- Madison County Gene ral Hospital for

an appa rent drug ov e rd os e . A t th a t ti me , M r. Se ttl e wa s c la ssi fi e d a s a me dium se c ur ity inm a te . Wh ile in t

he ho sp ita l, on August 16, 1999, Mr. Settle r equeste d that his r estraints be remove d so that he coul du s e t he restroom. The corr ectional of fice r in cha

rg e of Mr . Settle partially remove d the re straints, at which time Mr. Settle struck the off icer . Mr. Settle obtained the of fice r’s we apon, and e scape d from custody , taking a hostag e and a car from the hospital par

king lot. W

ill is v . S e ttl e , 162 S.W .3d 169 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004).
When Mr

. Se tt le w a s c a

u g h t, h e w a s c h ar g e d w it h th e p r is o n d is c ip li n ar

y in f r a c ti o n s of esca pe an d a s s a

u lt o n s ta f

f

. H e p le d g u il ty to b o th c h ar g e s
. F o r e a c h c o n v ic ti o n , th e prisonC o m m issio n e r L itt le is sue d in h is o ff ic ia l ca p a c ity o n ly. 1
-2- disc i p l i n ary

b o ar d (t h e “ Bo ar d ”) s en t en ce d

M r. S et t l e t o th i rt y

d ay s p un i t i v e s egr eg ation and imposed a five dollar fine. F or both the assa ult and esca

pe co n v i ct i o n s , t he B oard r ecommende d that Mr. Settle be subject to outside cha rg es, se e Se ttl e v . S

tate , N o
. W2 0 0 3

- 0 1 2 6 1

- CC A

- R3

- PC , 2 0 0 4 WL 16 56 48 1 (T e nn . Cr im App . July 23 , 2 00 4) . F or

the e sc a pe c onvic tio n, Mr . Se ttl e ’s re le a se e lig ibi lity date wa s ext ended to his sentenc e expiration date; this r ec o m m en d at i on was a pproved by

the Commi ssioner’s Desig nee and the Warden of the Har deman County Correc tional Fac ility . For the assault conviction, the Commi ssioner’s Desig nee and the Warden approve d the loss of nine months of se nte nc e c re dit . F or

the e sc a pe c onvic tio n, the B oa

rd re c omm e nd e d that Mr

. Se ttl e be pla c e d in administrative seg reg ation. This rec ommendation was a lso approved.
On December 12, 2005, Mr. S ettle fil ed a petition for writ of cer tiorari ag ainst Commi ssioner Ge or g e L itt le (t og e the r w iththe TD OC , “ Ap pe ll ees” ) in the Da vid so n Co un ty

Cha nc e ry Court , s e e k i n g r e v i e wo f

th e a c t i o n s o f th e T D O C i np l a c i n g M r
. W ar d i na dm i n i s tr a t i v e s e g r e g a t i o n
. In 1 his pe tition, filed pursuant to T .C.A. § 27-8-101, Mr. Settle seeks dec laratory and injunctive re lief based upon his alleg ations that he was not pr ovided a copy of the written post-hear ing statement of the B oa rd ’s de c isi on , inc lud ing the e vid e nc e re lie d u po n, in r e a c hin g its de c isi on to p la c e Mr . Se ttl e in administrative seg reg ation.
On Februa

ry 14, 2006, Mr. S ettle fil ed a Motion for Defa ult J udg ment. On Marc h 14, 2006, Mr

. Se ttl e fi le d a

Mo tio n f or Sum mary

Judg me nt. On

Marc h 1 7, 20 06 , App e lle e s f ile d a Mo tio n to Dismiss t he petition, and, on Mar ch 20, 2006, filed a response in opposition to Mr

. Settle’s motion for summary

judgme nt. On Marc h 2 9 , 2006, Mr. Settle filed a doc ument titled “Amended Com pla int ,” and

a re sp on se to A

pp e lle e s’ Mo tio n to Di smi ss. On September

1, 2006, the trial cour

t entere d an Or der, which re ads, in pertin en t p ar t, as fo llo ws : The Pe tit ion e r .
. . se e ks c e rt ior ari re vie w o f p ro c e dure s e mpl oy e d in c on jun c tio n w itha

re vie w o f h is p la c e me nt i n a dmi nis tr a tiv e segr e g a tio n. He a lso s ee k s i n j unctive re lief, and a

decla ratory judgme nt that TDOC Policy #404.10 require s written notice be g i v en t o h i m when his time under a dminist rative seg reg ation is ex tended . . . .

. . . . The Petitioner see ks relief under Te nn. Code Ann. §4-5 -2 23(a) of the Dec laratory

J udg ment Act, which states that “ [a] ny aff ecte d person may

petition an ag ency for a decla ratory order as to the validity

or applica

bility of a statute, r

ule or order within the primary

jurisdiction of the ag ency .” Howe ver, Te nn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102( 10)(A) exempts from the definition of a “rule” any “stateme nts conce rning on ly th e int e rn a l ma

na g e me nt o f s tate g ov e rnme nt a nd no t a ff e c tin g pr ivate ri g hts ,-3-

privileg es, or pr ocedur es ava ilable t o t h e p u b lic.” F urthermor e, Te nn. Code Ann. § 4-5-102( 10)(G) also exempts fr om the definition of “r ule” “ statements conc erning inm a te s o f a

c or re c tio na l or

de te nti on fa c ili ty .” Th e re fo re , th is a c tio n is n ot p ro pe rl y br ou g ht a s o ne fo r d e c larator y jud g me nt.

. . . . Th e sc op e of

re vie w a va ila ble thr ou g h th e c omm on -l aw wri t is e xtre me ly narr o w . T h e w r it ma

y b e u s e d o n ly to d e te r

mi n e w h e th e r , in a p arti c u la r c a s e , the disciplinary

board e x cee ded its jurisdiction or acted illeg ally , fr au d ulently , or arbitra rily ; it may

not be used to re view the c orre ctness of the Boa rd’s de cision.

. . . . In the pre sent ca se, the pe tition s tates that the prison re view committee met to review the status of the Petitioner’s c onfi n ement in administrative segreg ation. Th e c omm itt e e purp or

te dly de te rm ine d th a t th e Pe tit io ner’s c on fi ne me nt i n administrative seg reg ation should be extended for a nother 30 da

y s. The Petitioner states that he did not receive a written copy of the re view committee’ s decision and its rationale as r equire d under TD OC Poli cy #404.10. He a lleg es that he f iled a g rieva nce, but that his g rieva

nce w as denie d. He f

urt h er s t ates that the committ ee made the sa

me deci sion since Octobe r of 2005, “ without discussing the ne ed for administrative seg reg ation.”
Th e Pe tit ion e r c on te nd s th a t he ha s a pr ote c te d libe rt y int e re st in r e sid ingin the g ener al prison population. He fur ther a lleg es that TDOC re g ulations gove rning the a dmi nis tr a tio n o f s tate pr iso ns c re a te d s uc h a n inte re st.

. . . . . . . . As the Petitioner has not alleg ed that h e re ce i v ed punishments that would entitle him to procedura l due proc ess protec tio ns under Sandin [ v. Conner , 51 5 U .S. 47 2 ( 19 95 )], his du e pr oc e ss a rgume nt m

us t f a il.
. . . . In addition to his due process c laim, Petiti o n er al l eg es that the disciplinary

board violate d his rights by failingto follow its own established proce dures. . .

. [T] he Petitioner has failed to showthat the re view boar d’s dec ision to keep him in administrative seg reg ation constituted an “ at y pical and sig nificant hardship” unde r Sa nd

in

. Th e re fo re , du e pr oc e ss ri g hts are no t inv ok e d and th is argume nt m

us t f a il.
The only issue rema ining is whe ther the Petitioner is beingheld in continuing s eg reg ation as a puni tive me as ur e , d e s p it e it s c h ar a c te r iz a ti o na s a dmi n is trative.-4-

Wit hout the rec ord bef ore it, the Court ca

nnot make such a

dete rm i nation. Acc ording ly , the writ of c ertiora ri is here by

issued and the Re s p o n d ents are instructed to file a c ertified c opy

of the D.S.N.F . revie w commission’s rec ords. . . . (Interna l citations and footnote omitted) (e mphasis in origina l).
O nO c t o b e r

2 4 , 2 0 0 6 , Ap p e l l e e s f

i l e d a c e rt i f

i e d c o p y o f th e r e c o r d

. O nth e s am e d ay, Appellee s also filed a Motion for Judgme nt on the Record. Mr. S ettle filed a response in oppositi on to this m otion, and also filed a Motion for J udg ment as a Matter of L aw. Following a review of the rec ord , t h e t ri al co u rt issued its Order on July 10, 2007. That Orde r re ads, in rele vant par t, as fo llo ws : The only issue rema ining is whether the P etitioner i s being held in continuing seg reg ation as a puni tiveme as ur e , despite its char acte rization as administrative. TDOC policy

define s administr at i v e segr eg ation as the non-punitive seg reg ation of inmates, for control purp o s es , who ar e believe d to be a thre at to the secur ity of the institution, t he we lfare of staff , or other inmate s. . . .

. . . . A r e vie w of th e reco rd

sh ow s th at th e inm a te ple d guil ty to t he Cla ss A Infra ctions of Esca

pe and Assault on Staff with a De adly Weapon, and that he waived his right to a disc iplina ry hear ing. H is contention that he wa s not informed of the r e a s o n s f o r h i s p l a c e m e n ti n a dm i n i s tr a t i v e s e g r e g a t i o ni s , thu s , d i s i n g e nu o u s
. In de c idi ngto i mpo se a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n, the Di sc ipl ina ry B oa rd ha d be fo re it the fo llo wi ng fa c ts: the Pe tit ion e r p lann e d h is e sc a pe ahe a d o f t ime , h e us e d a de a dly w e a p o n , h e a s s a

u l t e d a s t a f f m e mb e r , h e s t o l e a

c ar an d h e a b d u c t e d a h o s t a g e
. In addition, the Petitioner’s prior re cord showe d three disciplinary convictions from 1 9 9 3 t o 1 9 9 7 fo r p o s s es s i o no f ad ea d l y we ap o n , al o n g wi th co n v i ct i o n s fo r f i gh t i n g, thr e a te nin g an e mpl oy e e , a nd oth e r l e sse r o ff

e ns e s. Since his place ment in administrative seg reg ation, the Petitioner has re ceive d dis c ipl ina ry c onvic tio ns fo r dis re sp e c t, re fu sa l of a dir e c t ord e r, and int e rf e re nc e wi th an o ff ic e r’ s d uti e s. Th e a dmi nis tr a tiv e re c or d c on ta ins monthly reviewfo rm s wh e re in t

he a dmi nis tr a tiv e pa

nel re c omm e nd s th a t th e Pe tit ion e r r e ma in i n administrative seg reg ation.

. . . . In the pre sent ca se, the wa rden ’s decision to adopt the panel’s re c omm e nd a tio n th a t th e Pe tit ion e r re ma in in admin ist rativ e se g re g a tio n a

pp e ars to be for rea sons of secur ity , safe ty and prison mana g ement. Ac cording ly , the Court-5-

f i n d s th a tth e P e t i t i o n e r

h a s f a i l e d t o d e m o n s tr a t e th a tth e w ar d e na c t e d i l l e g a l l y, fra udulently or ar bitrarily

. . . . Finally , TDOC Rule 404.10(VI )(B )(3) states that in case s where th e pane l re c omm e nd s r e le a se fr om a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n a nd the wa rd e n d isa g re e s, “ther e shall be a deta iled statement of r easons pr epar ed with a c opy provided to the inmate.” It does not appea r that t h e pane l has made suc h a re commendation, so as to trigg er the Rule 404.10(VI )(B )(3) require ment that the inmate re ceive a copy of su c h s tate me nt. Thus , the Pe tit ion e r’ s c on te nti on that he ha s no t be e n p ro vid e d w ith c op ie s o f h is m on thl y

a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n re vie w s tate me nt i s w ith out me ri t.
Acc ording ly , and for

the above stated re asons, this case is dismissed. . . . (Interna l citations omit ted) (e mphasis in origina l). Mr. Settle appea ls and raise s two issues for re view, as state d in his brief:
I . Did the Court er r[ ] [ in determining ] whether the Administrative Seg reg ation Review Pane l exceeded its jurisdiction or ac ted illeg ally , arbitra rily , or fra udulently without the warde n[’s] final appr oval dec ision?
I I . Did the Court err [] in fail[ing] to consider the aspe cts of T.C.A. §§§ 4-3- 603, 4-3-606, 41- 24-110, that auth o rity g ives TDOC policy

#404.10 an abuse of discretion by

relying on inc orre ct view of th e law or on clea

rly err oneous fa ctual fi nd ing s?
The c ommon-la w writ of ce rtiorar i serves a s the proper proce dural ve hicle throug h which prisoners may

see k review of dec isions by prison disciplinary

boards, pa

role e ligibility

revie w boards, and other simil ar administrative tribunals. Se e Rh od e n v . S tate De p't o f Co rr. , 984 S.W .2d 9 5 5 , 9 5 6 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. 1 9 9 8 ) ( ci t i n g Bishop v. Conley , 894 S.W .2d 294 (Tenn.Cr i m .App.1994)). By g ranting the writ, the reviewing court orders the lower tribunal to file its record so that the court can de termine whe ther the pe titioner is entitled to relief . Review unde r a writ of ce rtiorar i is li mited to whether

the infer ior b o ar d o r t ri bunal exceede d its jurisdi ction or ac ted illeg ally , arbitra rily , or fra udulently

. Mc Cal le n v . Ci ty of M e mp his , 786 S.W .2d 633, 640 (Tenn.1990) . The re viewingcourt do e s n ot w e ig h th e e vid e nc e , b ut m us t up ho ld t

he bo ard ' s d e c isi on

if the bo ard

a c ted wi thin i ts jurisdiction, did not act illega lly or ar bitrarily or fr audulently , and if there is any materia l evidence to support the board' s findings. W att s v . Ci v il S

e rv . B d. of

Colum bia , 606 S.W .2d 274, 276-77 (Tenn .1 98 0) ; Da v iso n v . Ca rr , 6 5 9 S. W. 2 d 3 6 1 , 3 6 3 ( T e n n
. 1 9 8 3 )

. Co n s e qu e n tl y , th e scope of revie w under

the common-lawwrit of ce rtiorar i is very narr ow. In Po we ll v . P ar oleEl igi bil ity Re v ie w Bo ar

d , 879 S.W .2d 871, 873 (Tenn.Ct.App.1994), this Court stated: The scope of re view under t h e co m mon law writ, howe ver, is ver y narr ow. I tc o v e r s o n l y

ani n qu i r y i n t o w h e th e r

th e B o a r d h a s e xc e e d e d

i t s j ur i s d i c t i o no r

is-6-

actingillega lly , fra

udulently , or ar

bitrarily . Conclusory

terms such a s “ar

bitrary and capr icious” will not entitle a petitioner to the wr it. At the risk of oversimplification, one may say that it is no t t h e correc tness of the de cision that is subject to judicial revie w, but the manner in which the decision i s rea ched. I f t he age ncy or boar d has rea ched its dec ision in a constitutional or l awf ul manner , then t he decision would not be subjec t to judicial review.
Id . at 873 (c itations omi tted).
These d eter

minations are issues of la w. W att s , 606 S.W .2d at 277. B eca use a writ of cer tiorari is not available as a matter of rig ht, its g rant or de nial is within t he sound discre tion of the trial court. Such de cisions will not be rever sed on appe al unless there is abuse of that disc re tion. Hall v. Mc

Lesky , 8 3 S

. W

. 3 d 7 5 2 , 7 5 7 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. 2 0 0 1 ) ( ci t i n g Boyc e v. W illiams , 389 S.W .2d 272, 277 (1965))

. On appe al, Mr. Settle first conte nds that his placement in administrative settlement was ill e g a l be c a

us e the War de n n e ith e r s ig ne d, no r g ave Mr . Se ttl e , a c op y of the po st- he ari ngstate me nt. TDOC Policy

#404.10 is trigg ere d by Mr. Settle’s asser tion. This policy

rea ds, in pertinent par

t, as fo llo ws : 3. Th e bo ard , a ft e r h e ari ngand di sp os ingof a c ha rg e fo r a dis c ipl ina

ry ru le infrac tion, may

rec ommend that an inmate be place d in AS [ i.e., administrative seg reg ation] when it is believed that their continued presenc e in the g ener al population may prese nt a threat to security , the staff , or other inm a te s.

a
. Th e i n m a t e s h a l l b e v e r b a l l y a dv i s e d b y th e b o ar d of its re c omm e nd a tio n a

nd be a ff or de d th e op po rt

un ity to p re se nt a s t at em en td

uri n g th e h ea ri n g. b. The boa

rd shall clea

rly state the re ason(s ) for the re c omm e nd a tio n o n th e AS Pla c e me nt R e po rt [an d] se nd

to the war den for

approva l, along with any

pertinent infor

mation reg ardingthe offe nse which was available t o the board at the panel he aring. At privately manag ed fa cilities, the warde n shall secur e the a

pproval of the CD [i .e., Commissi oner’s Desig nee] prior to the segreg ation taking eff ect. . . . Id . at §§ 404.10 (VI )(A) (3)( a) & (b).
As discussed above , Mr. Settle pled guilty to esca pe and a ssault char g es, and waived his right to a di sciplinary hear ing. As a result of Mr. Settle’s esca pe (which included use of a dea dly wea pon, and takinga hostag e), the Boa rd re commended that he be plac ed in administrative segreg ation. The-7-

Boa rd’s re commendation wa s approve d by the Commiss ioner’s D esig nee, a nd also by

the Warden. The a dminist rative r ecor d indicates that the Warde n’s re ason for approvingthe place ment was that the “[i] nmate esc aped f

rom the outside hospital in J ackson Tenn. During his esc ape, a hostag e wa s taken a s well as a ve hicle which r esulted in a hig h speed c hase. Inmate also a ssaulted staff and obtained his wea

pon which wa s al s o used in the hostag e situation.” TDOC Policy #4 04 .1 0( VI )( A) (1 )( a ) p ro vid e s: 1. Ad

min istrativ e se g re gati on (m a ximumc us tod y /se c ur ity ) i s p ro vid e d a s a means of control and manag ement. This level of segreg ation is for inmates wh o, be c a

us e of c on dit ion s su

rr ou nd in g th e ir

inc arc e ratio n, are be lie ve d to p o s e s erious risks to the sec urity and g ood order

of the institution or the safe ty of ot her inmate s, staff, or

the community

and ther efor e re quire c ustody and se c ur ity a t th e highe st l e ve l. Inmate s c on sid e re d fo r thi s c a te g or y sh a ll include, but not be limited to, those who:

a. Have been r eturne d to TDOC custody following an esc ape or a tt e mp te d e s c a p e in c id e n t f

r o m a s e c ur e s e tt in g ( c ustody l ev el s of minimum restricted) or highe r, or f

rom minimum secur ity with actual or

threatened violenc e; P u rs u an t t o the TDOC Administrative Policies and Proce dures, Mr. Settle, a s an esc apee wh o p os e d a

se ri ou s thre a t to a

sta ff me mbe r a

nd an inn oc e nt ho sta g e , wa s re qu ir e d to be pla c e d in administrative seg reg ation. We f ind no mandate, howeve r, that this placement re quired a signature from the Warde n and/or wr itten notice to the inmate.
Mr. Settle further

contends that his pl ace ment in administrative seg reg ation violated his due proce ss rig hts. W e disag ree . The United States Sup re m e Court has held that an inmate ’s constitutional due proce ss rig hts are only violated i f t he pre scribed punishment “ imposes an aty pical and si g nificant hardship on the i nmate in relation to the normal incidents of pr ison life.” Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.C t. 2293, 2300 (1995). Moreove r, t his Court has determined that a prisoner ’s place ment in administr ative segreg ation does not impose a sig nificant ha rdship and, there fore , does not implicate constitutional due proces s p ro t ections. See, e .g., W oodruff v. Tenn De p’ t of Cor r. , No

. M 2 0 0 1 -0 0 4 9 4 -C OA -R 3 -C V, 2 0 0 2 W L1 9 7 4 1 3 8 , * 5 -* 6 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. , Au g. 28, 2002).
Mr

. Se ttl e ne xt a

rgue s that his c on tin

ue d c on fi ne me nt in a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n is ill e g a l. Specifica lly , Mr. Settl e t ak es i s sue with the fa ct that the Warde n did not approve c ontinued administrative seg reg ation on August 31, 1999, O ctober 22, 1999, and J une 7, 2001. Turningback to t he TD OC po lic ie s, § 4 04 .1 0( VI )( B )( 2) re qu ir e s th a t:
2. Every

seven ( 7) day s from date signe d by approvingauthority , an inmate’ s status w ill be revie wed by the administrative revie w pane l or other a uthorized staff de signated by

the war den duringthe first two (2) months in AS. The 4 th-8- and 8 we e k r e vie ws sh a ll b e in a c c or da nc e wi th V I .( B )( 3) be low . We e kly th revie ws are documented on Contact Notes...and sha ll include a summary of the inmate’s a djustment as well as pane l members pre sent. The a dminist rative r ecor d indicates that the revie w panel met with Mr

. Settle dur ing both the fourth and the ei gh t h wee k of his confine ment in administrative seg reg ation. The pa nel’s rec ommendations on both oc casions wer e approve d by the Warden. A lthough the T DOC policies further provide that, in ca ses wher e the panel rec ommends rele ase from seg reg ation and the Warde n disag ree s, “there shall be a de tailed statement of r eas o n s p re p ar ed with a copy provided to the inm a te .” TD OC Pol ic y

§4 04 .1 0( VI )( B )( 3) , in the ins tant c a se , th e pa ne l di d n ot r e c omm e nd

re le a se f r o m s e g r e g a ti o n
. Co n s e qu e n tl y , § 4 0 4

. 1 0 ( V I ) ( B ) ( 3 ) w a s n o t tr ig g e r e d , an d M r
. Se tt le was not entitled to written notice fr om the Warden.
Mr. Set t l e al so argues that his continued conf inement in administrative seg reg ation c on sti tute s “ dis c ipl ina

ry c on fi ne me nt. ” Spe c if

ic a lly , h e c on te nd s th a t th e tr ia l c ourt a bu se d it s discretion in re lying upon T DOC Policy §404.10 instead of The Adult Servic e Poli cies and Procedure

s Manual of the TDOC Rules 4.601( 5) and 4.602. He also asser ts that the trial court e rre d beca use it a lleg edly did not consider the duration of his placement, or his confinement at differ ent prisons. We disagr ee. TDOC Policy

§ 404.10(IV)(A ) def

ines administrative seg reg ation as “[t] he non-punitive seg reg ation of inmates, for control purpose s, who are believed to be a thr ea t t o t he sec urity of the instit ution, the welfare of st aff , or to other inmates.” Consequently , the B oard ma y rec ommend that an inm ate be place d in administrative seg reg ation when the B oard be lieves that the inmate’ s continued pr esenc e in the g ener al population may prese nt a threat to security , the staff , or other inmates. TDOC Policy

§ 404.10(IV)(A )(3) . Mr. S ettle contends that he does not mee t these cr iteria, an d th a t, c o n s e qu e n tl y , h is c o n f in e me n t i n adminis tr a ti v e s e g r e g a ti o nis p un it iv e in n a tu r e
. We disag ree
. We cannot conc lude that his continued conf inement is for purpose s of punishment. In Cla rk v . R os e , 183 S.W .3d 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005), this Court aff irmed the trial court’s finding that an inmate’s conf

inement in administrative seg reg ation was non-punitive wher e the inmate had a history of violence and had assaulted and stabbed another inmate. L ikewise, the nature o f M r. Settle’s e sc a pe , w hic h is the a c t th a t pr e c ipi tate d h is confi nemen t in a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n, sh ow s a propensity

toward violenc e. The fac ts surrounding his escape are tho ro u gh l y s et out in W illis v. Se ttl e , 1 62 S.W. 3d

16 9 ( Te nn . Ct . App
. 20 04 ). I t is su ff ic ie nt fo r the c ur

re nt a pp e a l th a t Mr . Se ttl e used dea dly

forc e in per

petrating his esc ape. He assaulted t he officer in char g e, used the office r’s g un to take a hostag e (whom he kept at gunpoint throug hout most of her ordea l). He led police on a hig h-spee d chase , pu t t i n g h i s hostag e, other office rs, and the public a t larg e at g reat risk. Once c a ptu re d, he a dmi tte d to the c ha rg e s, and c on c e de d th a t he ha d p lann e d th e e sc a pe pr ior to g oin g to the hospital. I n addition to the fac ts surrounding Mr. Settle’s escape and captur e, the administ rative rec ord reve als that Mr. Settle’s status ha s been revie wed regularly

. In rea chingits recommendation that Mr. Settle rema in confined, the panel ha s noted many times that Mr. Settle has a poor attitude-9-

toward a uthority , that he has e ng ag ed in ac tiviti es that led to other disc iplinary actions, t hat he ha s display ed violent and threatening behavior toward other inmates and staff. F rom the totality of the circ umstances, we conclude that there is g ood rea son for Mr. Settle’s seg reg ation from the g ener al population. Rather than punitive i n n at ure, Mr . Settle’s continued conf inement appe ars to be a nece ssary action in order to c ombat his disruptive and dang erous propensities. The fa ct that three differ e n t p r is o nw ar d e n s h av e a p p r o v e d th e B o ar d ’ s r e c o mm e n d a ti o nto c o n ti nu e M r
. Se ttle’s administrative conf

inement only

works to streng then the ca se for that confine ment. In W

oodruff v. Te nn De p’ t of Cor r. , No. M2001-00494-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 1974138 (Tenn. Ct. App., Aug . 28, 2002), this Court held that the “w ar d en h as wide discre tion to place an inmate in administrative s e g r e g a t i o nf

o r r e a s o n s o f

s e c ur i ty, s a f

e ty, an d p r i s o nm an a g e m e n t

. . . . ” G i v e nM r
. S e t t l e ’ s h i s t o r y, and base d upon the re cord be fore us, we find that Mr. Settle’ s confineme nt in admin i strative seg reg ation is not punitive in nature , but is a nec essar y place ment in order to pr otect staff and other inm a te s. In conclusion, there is nothing in t he re cord to indicate that the disciplinary board a cted outside its jurisdi ction or acted arbitrarily , fra udulently , or i lleg ally

. The trial c ourt was, ther efor e, corr ect in dismissing Mr. Settle' s petition.
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm the order

of th e t ri al court. Costs of this appeal a re assessed a g ainst the Appellant, Mike Settle.

___________________________________ DAVI D R. FARMER, J UDGE