### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Su bm itt ed on B ri ef s, January 24, 200 7

A N TW A N A N GL IN v. S ER GE A N T L ER OYTU RN ER , WA RD EN , JIM WO RTHI NGTO N, BOTH BRUSHY MOUNTAI N REGI ONAL CORREC TIONA L F AC ILITY ( SITE 2) A ND GEOR GE LITT LE, COM MISS IONER

OF THE T ENN ESSE E D EP AR TME NT OF CORRECTI ONS

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Morgan County No. 03-CV -316 Hon. Russell S im m ons, Circuit Judge

No. E2006-01764-COA- R3-CV- F ILED MARCH 28, 2007

Pr iso ne r f ile d Pe tit ion

fo r a wr it o f c e rt ior ari . The Tr ia l Cour t re fu se d to issu e the wr it. 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 Ci r c uitCo ur t A ffirm e d.

H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P.J ., delivere d the opinion of the cour t, in which C H A RLES D. S US ANO , J R ., J ., and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J ., joined.
Antwan Ang lin, Only , Tenne ssee, pr o s e

. Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney Gene ral a

nd Report, and Ke llena B aker , Nashville, Tenne ssee, f or a pp e lle e s.

OP IN ION

Pe tit ion e r, a

pr iso ne r a t B ru sh y Mo un ta in Cor re c tio na l Co mpl e x, fi le d th is a c tio n in Circuit Court in the form of a Petition for a Writ of Certior ari, naming Ser g eant L eroy Turner , War de n Jim Wo rt

hin g ton , Co mmi ssi on e r G e or g e L itt le of TD OC , a nd TD OC a s r e sp on de nts

.
Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d that his c e ll wa s “ sh ake n do wn ” , and that the g uards alleg e dly found “se vera l packe t s o f what appea red to be marijuana

in a jar.” (Quoting from the disciplinary repor t filed by the guar ds.) Petitioner alleg ed that he pleaded not g uilty to the disciplinary

violation,-2-

and a he aring was held befor e Serg eant L eroy Turner three day s after

the cha rg e. The Petition s tates that the hea

ringoffice r re lied on the testimony of the g uards, who te stified that marijuana was found in petitioner’s ce ll, but he asserte d that there was no e vidence submitt ed th at t h e substance was actua lly tested and confirme d to be marijuana

. The Petition argues that due pr ocess r equire d that the
s u b s t ance be pr oduced a

nd tested bef

ore he could be f

ound g uilty , but the Warden a ffirme d the decision, findinghim guilty of the c harg e.

Re sp on de nts fi le d a Moti on To Di smi ss, a sse rt ing that Peti tio ne r h a d f a ile d to state a cla im for issuance of the Writ, a nd asser ted that Petition had failed to alleg e fa cts sufficie nt to show the B oard a cted illeg ally , and that the Petitioner’s due proce ss rig hts had bee n violated.

The Court then e ntere d an Or der of Dismissal.

The Trial Court f

ound that the issue to be decide d was whether the B oard e x cee ded its jurisd ic tio n. Th e Court no te d th a t th e re po rt ingof fi c e r t e sti fi e d th a t ma

ri jua na wa s f ound in Petitioner’s ce ll, and Peti t i o n er ad m i t ted that this occurr ed. The Court thus concluded ther e wa s evidenc e to support the inferior tribunal’s decision, and the constitutional saf eguards wer e satisfied. Fur ther, the Court found that the sanc t i o n s i m p osed on Petitioner did not impose an aty pical and signific ant har dship.

Pe tit ion e r r a ise s th e se iss ue s o n a pp e a l:

1. Whether the trial c ourt err ed in dismissi ng petitioner’s Petition for Writ of Ce rt ior ari ?

2. Whether petitioner’ s due proc ess rig hts were violated?

As this Court has stated:

A writ of c ertiora

ri is an orde r fr om a superior court to a n inferior tribunal to send up a complete rec ord for

revie w, so that th e cour

t can de termine whe ther that tribunal has excee ded its jurisdiction, or has ac ted illeg ally , fra udulently or ar

bitrarily . The writ is not available a s a matter of rig ht; i t s gra n t o r denial is withi n the sound dis c re tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt , a

nd wi ll n ot b e re ve rs e d o n ap pe a l unle ss the re is a bu se of that discre tion.

Fur ther, the sc ope of r eview unde r the c ommon law writ of ce rtiorar i is ve ry narr ow. I t does not involve an inquiry into the intri n s i c correc tness of the de cision of the tribunal below, but only

into the manner in whic h the dec ision was rea ched. Hall v. Mc

Lesky , 83 S.W .3d 752, 757 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001)( citations omitt ed).

The S upreme Court has also held t hat t he phrases “ex cee ding the jurisdiction” and

“ a c tin g ill e g a lly” , b ot h refer to “ a c tio ns by su c h in fe ri or

tr ibu na l be y on d, no t w ith in, its-3-

jurisdiction”. Fur

ther, the Court e x plained:

Wit hout undertakingto define that phr ase of the statute with e x actne ss or to say what it includes, we think it clear that t h e co mmon-law writ, as disting uished from the statutory writ, or ce rtiorar i in lieu of appeal, m ay not be resorted to for the cor rec tion of tec hnical or formal e rror s, not affe cting jurisdiction or power, or for the c orre ction of def ects that a

re not ra dical , am o u n t ing to a n illega lity

that is fundamental, a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d

f r o mani r r e g u l ar i ty.
* * *

The wr it has never

been e mploy ed t o i nquire into the cor rec tness of the judg ment rende red where the court had jurisdi ction, and was there fore competent. He nce it has been he ld that the supervisory jurisdiction of the court on a cer tior ar i m u s t be restric ted to an examination into the external validity of the proce eding s had in the low e r c ourt . It c ann ot b e e xercis ed to reviewthe jud g me nt a s to its int ri ns ic
corr ectne ss, either on the la w or on the fa cts of the c ase. The supervisory power s of the cour t should not be confounded w ith its appellate jurisdiction.

Hoove r Moto r E

xp

. Co. v. Railroad & Public Utiliti es Comm. , 261 S.W .2d 233, 236 (Tenn. 1953)(c itations omi tted).

Petitioner argues the Tr ial Court erre d in dismi ssing his writ, rely ing on the ca se of W illis v. Tenn. Dept. of Corrections , 113 S.W .3d 706 (Tenn. 2003) . In the W ill is case , the petitioner who had be en convic ted of a disciplinary

offe nse soug ht a writ of cer tiorari, alleging that the boar d
a c te d il le g a lly

by fa ili ng to c omp ly wi th e sse nti a l le g a l r e qu ir e me nts , in c lud ingfa ilure to g ive him notice of the char g es ag ainst him, and failing to al l o w h i m to present e x culpatory evidenc e at the hear ing. Id. De fe nd ant f ile d a Mo tio n to Di smi ss, wh ic h w a s g ra nte d. Th e S up rem e Court , howeve r, explained that when r eviewing a d i s m i s s al under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6), the fac tual alleg ations must be taken as true , and that bec ause a motion to di s m i s s only tested the leg al sufficie ncy

of the pe tition, t he Court should only g rant the motion if the plaintiff c ould prove no set of fa cts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief. Id.

Th e Co urt went o n to dis c us s th e pla int if f’ s c la ims of

la c k o f n oti c e /la c k o f a

bil ity to introduce e vidence , and stated that since these f actua l al l ega t ions had to be take n as true, a nd since, if true , these a lleg ations would constitute action s in violation of the TDOC Uniform Disciplinary

Procedur es, the Tr ial Court erre d in gr anting the Motion to Dismi ss.

I n this case, a s noted, plaintiff only alleg ed that the substance taken fr om his cell was not shown to have be en “te sted and c onfirmed” to be marijuana , even though the g uards who found same did testify

that it was marijuana

. Plaintiff p o i n t s t o no policies or proc edure s, howeve r, which w ould require the-4-

phy sical evide nce be p re s en t ed at the hea ring , or that the phy sical evide nce be “tested a nd confirme d”. As Petitioner admitted, the hear ing office r based his de cision on the testimony of the g uards who found the substance, and Petitioner has shown no require ment in t h e d i s ci plinary p r o c e d u r e s t h a ta

t e s th a d t o b e p e r f

o r m e d o nth e s u b s t an c e t o c o r

r o b o r a t e th e g u ar d s ’ t e s t i m o n y. Takingpetitioner’s a lleg ations as true, the a lleg ations fail to establish that any policy or proc edure was violated, a

nd thus do not show that the Board acted ill eg ally

. Petitioner seems to be a sserting that the board acte d on insufficient evidenc e, but as stated in Hoove r , a wr it “ c ann ot b e e xer c ise d to revie w the judgme nt a s to its intrinsic c orre ctness, either on the law or on the fa cts of the c ase” . The writ is simpl y

employ ed to deter

mine if the Board ex cee ded it s jurisdiction. Since petit ioner ha s not
a lle g e d fact s suff

ic ie nt t o s ho w the B oa

rd e xce e de d it s juri sd ic tio n, the Tr ia l Co ur t pr op e rl y dismiss ed the Petition.

Pe tit ion e r a lso a lle g e s his due pr oc e ss ri g hts we re vio late d for the fo re g oin g re a so ns

. But, a s the Supreme Court also e x plained in W ill is , Petitioner must show that the punishment he wa s g ive n w a s su ff

ic ie ntl y ha rs h to amou

nt to the imp os iti on of “ a ty pic a l and sig nif

ic ant ha rd sh ip

. . . in relation to the ordinary

incidents of prison life” in orde r to show that a liber ty interest existed which require d due proc ess protec tion. Id., quoting Sandin v. Conner , 115 S. Ct. 2293 (1995). In this case, petitioner ar g ues that the punishment of 10 day s of seg reg ation, and 6 months of denial of his right to rec eive visitors/packa g es, wa s aty pical and a

signific ant har dship. As the Supreme Co u r t o b s erve d in W ill is , the Sa nd

in Court f ound that 30 day s of punitive se g reg ation “wa s not a dramatic depar ture from the basic conditions of the prisoner ’s indeter

minate sentenc e, and the ref ore, the prisoner w as not entitled to due proce ss protection.” Id. at 711. L ikewise, the W ill is Court found t hat a 30 day seg reg ation was a lso not aty pical or ha

rsh in that case

. Id.

I t f oll ow s th a t a

10 da y se g re g a tio n and lim its on vis ito rs /pa c ka g e s is n ot s uf fi c ie ntl y harsh to be “aty

pical” of or a “sig nificant ha rdship . . . in relation to the ordinar y incidents of prison l i fe

. ” Id, e s p e c i a l l y , s i n c e h e w a s f o un d g u i l ty o f p o s s e s s i n g ani l l e g a l s u b s t an c e i nh i s c e ll. Mo re ov e r, he fa ile d to sh owthat he ha d a lib e rt y int e re st that requir e d d

ue pr oc e ss s a fe g ua

rd s. As s u m i n g arguendo he did have su c h a libe rt y int e re st, he did

no t e sta bli sha la c k o f d ue pr oc e ss i n this inst ance

.
We a ffirm the Trial Court’s finding that Petitioner’s constitutional rig hts ha ve not been violate d.

We a ff

ir m th e Tr ia l Co ur

t’ s d ism iss a l of

th e P eti ti on and

a sse ss t he c os t a g a ins t Antwan Ang lin.

______________________________ H ER SCH EL P I CKE N S F RAN KS , P

. J.