### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ja nua ry 10, 200 5
JO HN D. COOKE II I v . TENNESS EE DEPARTME NT OF CORRECTI ON, ET AL 

### . Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Davidson County No. 02C-3340 Walte r K urtz, Judge

No. M2003- 02441-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Fe bruary 4, 2005

The plaintiff soug ht a common law writ of certiorari to re view the action of a prison disciplinary board. The Circuit Court held that the corr ection of the Boa rd’s de cision was not s ubject to j udicial re vie w. We a ff

ir m. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
W I L L I AM H. I NMAN , S R
. J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which W I L L I AM C K O CH , J R ., P.J .M.S., and F RAN K G. C L EME NT , J R ., J ., joined.
J ohn D. Cooke I I I , pro s e
. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a n d R eporte r; Michae l E. Moore, Solicitor Gene ral; Arthur Cr ow no ve r I I , Se nio r C ou ns e l, f or the app e lle e , T e nn e sse e De pa rt me nt o f C or

re c tio n, Wes t Tenne ssee State Penitentiary , and West Tennesse e S tate P enitentiary - S ite I I - Disciplinary Boa rd.
OP IN ION The plaintiff/a

ppellant is an inmate in the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ections. He filed a petition for c ertiora

ri to review the ac tions of a prison disciplinary board w hich was a ffirme d by the Warden a nd later by the C ommissi oner of Correc tion. The Circuit Court dismi ssed the petition for c ertiora

ri, holding in a ccor d with Ake e m v. C ampbe ll , 2001 WL

11346250 (Tenn. Ct. App., Nov. 2, 2 0 0 1 ) th a t th e c o rr e c tn e s s o f th e a c ti o n is n o t s u b je c t to ju d ic ia l r e v ie w u n d e r th e common law writ of c e rt ior ari

. Th e pla int if f app e a ls, ins ist ing that the De pa rt me nt of Cor

re c tio n did no t a

bid e its ow n p oli c ie s A pp e lla te revi ew i s de novo on the re cord, w ith the presumption that as to fac tual matters the judg ment is corre ct, but with no presumption as to matters of law

. See , Rule 13(d), Te nn. R. A pp . P.
T h e p e ti ti o n e r

s e e k s a r e v ie w o f

d is c ip li n ar y

a c ti o n ta

k e n a g a in s t h im

b y th e p r is on Disciplinary

Boa rd. He was cha

rg ed with an infr action bec ause he failed to prope rly answe r at the-2-

roll call. He pleade d g uilty to the di sciplinary infrac tion, and arg ues t hat he did so beca use he w as t o l d t h at h e w o u l d h av e t o re m ai n fo r a fu rt h er t i m e in cl o s e co n fi n em en t p ri o r t o a c o n t es t ed h ea ri n g.
The motion to dismi ss was pre mised upon the principle that the f acts a lleg ed in t he petition do not warr ant re view either under the statutory

or common law c ertiora

ri statute and c ase la w.
The c ommon law writ of certiorari is appropriate to re view the a ction of a prison disciplinary board, Rhoden v. State De p’t of Correction , 984 S.W. 2d95 5 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 8) bu t r e vie w i s limit ed. Te nn. Code Ann. § 27-8 -1 0 1

. I t d o es not provide a r emedy as to the c or re c tne ss of the decision of the B oard, be cause the intrinsic corr ectne ss of the dec ision is not s u b j ec t to judicial revie w. Po we ll v. Pa ro le Elig ibi lit y Re v ie w Bo ar

d , 879 S.W .2d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). T he power of the writ is restricted to a deter mination of whether the B oard e x cee ded its jurisdiction or is acting illega lly

. Yokl

e y v . St ate , 632 S.W .2d 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).
We are not at liberty

to review the corr ectne ss of the discipline imposed upon the appe llant a ndthe jud g me nt i s a ff

ir me d a t hi s c os ts.

___________________________________ WI LL I AM H. INMAN, SENI OR J UDGE