1 A computer se arch showed one pub lished and eight unpubli shed opini ons in Tennes see st ate court s in w hich Mr. M and ela is lis ted as a plaintiff. An order by the U nited States D istrict Court lists nine such cases in federal courts.



### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE Assigned on

Briefs M ay 31, 2002 JABARI ISSA MANDELA v. DONAL CAMPBELL, ET AL 

### . Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 01-722-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2001-01956-COA-R3-CV - Filed January 28, 2003

After a federal co urt ba rred an inmate legal helper f rom submitting further filings, the warden removedthe legal helper from his job. The prisoner filed a

Petition fo

r Decla ratory Judgment a

gainst the Warden and the Commissione r of Correction in an attempt to have his job restored. The trial court dis missed the

petition f or failur e to name a proper party and failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We a ffirm the trial court. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed and Remanded

B EN H. C ANT RELL , P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W IL LI AM C. K OCH , J R . and W ILLI AM B. C AIN , JJ., joined. Jabari Issa Mandela, Henning , Tennessee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; and Dawn Jordan, Assistant Attorney Genera l, for the appellee, State of Tennessee.
OPINION

I. A P RISO N L EGAL A IDE
Jabari Issa Mandela, forme rly kn own as John Henry Wooden, ha s been in p

rison sinc e his conviction in 1980 for multiple felonies. See Wooden v. State , 898 S.W.2d 752 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1994). During

his impriso nment, he has filed numerous civil lawsuits against the prison authorities and other s. 1 Accord

ing to his petition, he was approved to serve as an inmate lega l helper in 1983. He apparently

served in that capacity

in several prisons where he had been inca rcerated.-2-

In June of 1999, Mr. Mandela was transferred to the West Tenne ssee State Penitentia ry in Henni ng, Tennessee (WTSP). There he was tested for his leg al ability and was ag ai n appro ved to
serve as an inmate legal helper. But on May 1, 2000, Warde n James Dukes rescinded permission for Mr. Mandela to act as a legal helpe r.
Warden Dukes posted a memo on three prison bulletin boards to notify all staff and inmate s that in accordance with a court order, M r. Mande la was no longer authorize d to assist any

inmates in legal ma tte rs, and th at “[a]ny inmate fo

und to be a ssisted by

Mandela will subje ct themse

lves to monetary fine s and/or could be found in contempt of a court order.”

The order r

efere nced by the ward en was iss ued by

the Unite d States Di strict Court for the Western District of Tennessee in the case of Mandela v. Alton Hes son, et al. , No. 99-2818-D. In that case, the District Court took judicial notice of the fact that Mr. Mandela had filed five previousin pauperi s claims in the Western andMiddle District which were dismissed as frivolous. In ac cordance
w ith 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) of the Prison Litigation Refor m Act of 1995, the court barred him from bringin g any

more in fo

rma paup eris cla

ims in the We stern Dis trict.

The federal court further noted Mr. Mande la’s possible role in a civil rights complaint sty led Antwan Br own v. James Dukes, et al . Although the name Antwan Brown had been signed to t h e complaint and aff idavit, the court sta ted that it had re ceived a one-sheet, hand-printed letter pur porting to come fr om Mr. Br

own, with h

is name signed at the bottom. The lette r asser ted that Mr . Brown

did notauthorize

the filing

of the complaint, th at Mr. Ma ndela ha d fil ed the co mp laint without Mr. Brown’s agree

ment, and that Mr. Ma

ndela had forged Mr. Brown’s sig nature. The court noted that the sign ature on

the lette r differ ed from those on the

complain t and aff idavit.

The court ac cording ly e

njoined Mr . Mandela

from “pr

eparing any pleading s, affid a vits, motions, or other documents of any sort for any other pe

rson for filing in this Court” and ordered that a copy of the

order be sent to the Warden and to the Correction Commissioner.

Mr. Mandela asserts that on May 2, 2000 he was charged in a disciplinary repor

t with forgery in the incident

de sc ri be d a bo ve , a nd th at af te r a he ar in g, th e d is ci pl in ar y bo ar d f ou nd hi m n ot gu il ty. The prisoner subsequently f iled with the Department of Correction a Petition for Declaratory

Order
as to the validity of the Warden’s directive denying him the right to give leg al assistance to other inmates. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223. The Department never r esponded to the petition.

On March 7, 2001, Mr. Mandela filed a Petition f

or Decla ratory Judgment i n forma p auperis , which challenged the termination of his jo b as a prison legal helper. He name d Commissioner of Correction Donal Campbell, and Warden Dukes as respondents. They filed a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a

claim for which relief can be g ranted. See Rule 12.02(6), Tenn. R. Civ. P. The trial court filed a Memorand um and Order g ranting the respondents’ motion on May 16, 2001. Mr. Mandela then filed a Motion to Alter or Amend, which the court de nied on July

16, 2001. T

his appeal followed.2 Mr. M andela claims that he himself prepared pleadings t hat led to the opini on in New som v. No rris
-3- II. T ENN . C ODE A NN . § 4-5-225

Under the Unifo rm Administ

rative Pr ocedure s Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-1-101, et seq., our Legislature

has give n individua

ls the rig ht to petiti on the cou

rts f or declar atory

judgmen ts agai nst state agencies. The procedure such individuals must follow is set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225. Since that s tatut e is in derogat ion o f the s tate’ s sov ereign immunity , partie s seeking to benef it from its provisions must strictly comply with its requirements. Section (a) of the statute reads,

The legal validity or

applicability of a statute, r ule or orde r of an a

gency to specified circumstances may

be deter mined in a

suit for a declaratory

judgment in the chan cery court of Davidson Co un ty, u nless otherwise specifically provided by statute, if the court finds tha t the statu te, rule or order , or its threatened application, interferes withor impairs, or threatens to interfere with or impair, the legal rights or privileges of the co mplainan

t. The ag ency

shall be ma

de a par ty to the suit.

Mr. Mandela named the Warden a nd the Commissioner of Correction as respondents, but failedto comply with the specific re quirement

of making “the agency

” (the Department of Correction) a party to the suit. Such an omission is fatal to any claim under Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5- 225. See Utley v. Rose , 55 S.W.3d 559 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).

The trial cou

rt additio nally

found that even if Mr. Mandela had name d a prope

r respondent, declaratory

judgment would still not have been applicable to this petition. The court reasoned that under the authority of Newsom v. Norris , 888 F.2d 371 (6 th Circuit 1989), 2 no prison i nmate has the legal right to a prison job, including one as an inmate leg al helper, and thus that the action of th e warden did not interfere with any “legal rights or privilege s” possessed by the pe titioner.

In his Motion to Alter or Amend, Mr. Mandela tried a differe nt approach. Heconceded that he did not have a legal right to any prison job, bu t u rg ed th e c ou rt to re ad hi s p et it io n m or e b ro ad ly. He alleged that by

prevent in g him from giving lega l assistance to inmates, the defendants have impermiss ibly

burdened the constitutional right of those inma

tes to mea ningful accessto the cou

rts. See Bounds v. Smith , 430 U.S. 817 (1977). His motion w as supple mented by

the aff idavits of seven prisoners at WTSP, ea

ch of who m asserte d the diff iculty of obtain ing comp etent l eg al help at the institution

in a vari ety

of situati ons.
We agree that prisoners are entitled to meaningful access to the courts, but we find it ha r d to belie ve that su ch acce ss can be secure d at WTSP only

if Mr. Mandela is re stored to his jo b

. Though he has de

monstrate d energ

y a nd persis tence in

his legal endeav ors, he has been less than effective. He

has managed to get himself barr ed from the courts of one federal district, and as we discuss below, his frivolous filings should also have barred him from state courts.-4- III. T ENN . C ODE A NN . § 41-21-807

Our Legislature ha s sought to balance the constitutional right to meaningful ac cess to the courts with the legitimate state interest in preventing the judi cia l sy stem from being f looded with unmeritorious or frivolous complaints, filed by inmates at taxpayer expense. Pendleto n v. Mills , 73 S.W.3d 115 (Ten

n. Ct. App. 2001); Davis v. H olland , 31 S.W.3d 574 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000). To accompl ish this purp ose, they ena cted Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-801, et seq., which reg ulates the filing of in pauperis claims by inmate s. Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-807 bars any suc h furth er fil ings by i nmates who have a

history of filing frivolou s claims:
(c ) In no event s hall an in mate brin g a civi l action o r appea l a judgm ent in a c ivil action or proceeding under this section if the inmate has, on three (3) or more prior occasio ns, wh il e i nc ar ce ra te d o r d et ai ne d i n a ny f ac il it y, brought an action or appeal in a court of this state or the United States that was dismissed o n the gr ounds that

it is frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted,
un le ss th e i nm at e i s u nd er im mi ne nt da ng er of se ri ou s p hys ic al in

ju ry.
As we noted above, Mr. Mandela has filed five claims in the U.S. District Courts that were deemed by th ose cou rts to be f

riv ol ous . In his current petition he does not make any allega tions to indicate that he is in imminent danger of serious phy sical injury. I t thus appears to us that the trial court should have dismissed M r. Mande la’s peti tion on the

basis of Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-807, as well as for failure to comply with the requirements of Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-225.

III.

The order of the trial court is affirmed. Remand this cause to the Chancery Court of Davidson County for further proceedings c onsistent with this opinion. Tax the costs on a ppeal to t he appellant.

_________________________________________ BEN H. CA

NTREL L, PRESI DIN G JUDGE, M. S.