IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 10, 2005

JOHN D. COOKE III v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,

ET AL.

 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Davidson County

No. 02C-3340 Walter Kurtz, Judge

No. M2003-02441-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 4, 2005

The plaintiff sought a common law writ of certiorari to review the action of a prison disciplinary

board. The Circuit Court held that the correction of the Board’s decision was not subject to judicial

review. We affirm.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Circuit Court Affirmed

WILLIAM H. INMAN, SR. J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM C KOCH, JR.,

P.J.M.S., and FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., joined.

John D. Cooke III, pro se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Arthur

Crownover II, Senior Counsel, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Correction, West

Tennessee State Penitentiary, and West Tennessee State Penitentiary - Site II - Disciplinary Board.

OPINION

The plaintiff/appellant is an inmate in the Tennessee Department of Corrections. He filed

a petition for certiorari to review the actions of a prison disciplinary board which was affirmed by

the Warden and later by the Commissioner of Correction. The Circuit Court dismissed the petition

for certiorari, holding in accord with Akeem v. Campbell, 2001 WL 11346250 (Tenn. Ct. App., Nov.

2, 2001) that the correctness of the action is not subject to judicial review under the common law

writ of certiorari. The plaintiff appeals, insisting that the Department of Correction did not abide its

own policies Appellate review is de novo on the record, with the presumption that as to factual

matters the judgment is correct, but with no presumption as to matters of law. See, Rule 13(d), Tenn.

R. App. P.

The petitioner seeks a review of disciplinary action taken against him by the prison

Disciplinary Board. He was charged with an infraction because he failed to properly answer at the
-2-

roll call. He pleaded guilty to the disciplinary infraction, and argues that he did so because he was

told that he would have to remain for a furthertime in close confinement prior to a contested hearing.

The motion to dismiss was premised upon the principle that the facts alleged in the petition

do not warrant review either under the statutory or common law certiorari statute and case law.

The common law writ of certiorari is appropriate to review the action of a prison disciplinary

board, Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Correction, 984 S.W.2d 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) but review is

limited. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-101. It does not provide a remedy as to the correctness of the

decision of the Board, because the intrinsic correctness of the decision is not subject to judicial

review. Powell v. Parole Eligibility Review Board, 879 S.W.2d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994). The

power of the writ is restricted to a determination of whether the Board exceeded its jurisdiction or

is acting illegally. Yokley v. State, 632 S.W.2d 123 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981).

We are not at liberty to review the correctness of the discipline imposed upon the appellant

and the judgment is affirmed at his costs.

___________________________________ 

WILLIAM H. INMAN, SENIOR JUDGE