FILED

June 29, 1999

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate Court Clerk

GARY T. DOTSON ) C/A No. 01A01-9811-CV-00596

) DAVIDSON COUNTY

Petitioner-Appellant ) Circuit No. 98C-1021 

)

v . )

 ) 

TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTION and TURNEY CENTER )

INDUSTRIAL PRISON DISCIPLINARY )

BOARD )

)

Respondents-Appellees )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AT NASHVILLE

APPEALED FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY 

THE HONORABLE WALTER C. KURTZ, JUDGE

Gary T. Dotson

TDOC No. 127594

Turney Center, Route 1

Only, TN 37140

Pro Se, Appellant

Paul G. Summers

Attorney General and Reporter

Michael E. Moore

Solicitor General

Sohnia W. Hong, BPR #17415

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Division

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, TN 37243

Attorneys for Respondents-Appellees

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

 Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

CONCUR:

Franks, J.

Susano, J.
1

The record does not show the meaning of the phrase “suspended for

60 days.” We assume it means that if Mr. Dotson is guilty of no more

infractions for a 60-day period, the five-day punishment would not be imposed.

2

O P I N I O N

This is a suit by Gary T. Dotson, an inmate in the

custody of Tennessee Department of Corrections at Turney Center

Industrial Prison, seeking reversal of a determination that he

was denied due process rights in a hearing which resulted in a

finding that he had failed a drug screen test and should be

punished as follows: (1) five (5) days of punitive segregation,

suspended for sixty (60) days; 1 (2) loss of six (6) months of

visitation privileges; and (3) payment of seventeen dollars and

fifty cents ($17.50) for the drug screen.

The Trial Court granted a summary judgment in favor of

the Respondents, resulting in this appeal wherein Mr. Dotson

insists there are disputed material facts precluding summary

judgment and that he was not given sufficient time to complete

discovery depositions before the hearing.

The Trial Court principally relied on a case decided by

the Supreme Court of the United States in granting the summary

judgment and employed the following language:

In Sandin v. O’Conner , ____ U.S. ____, 115 S.Ct.

2293 (1995), the court held that a prisoner did not

have a protected liberty interest in remaining free

from disciplinary segregation. The court held that the

punishment of incarcerated prisoners does not impose
3

retribution in lieu of a valid conviction, rather it

effectuates prison management and prisoner

rehabilitative goals. the court noted that while

prisoners do not shed all constitutional rights at the

prison gate, “lawful incarceration brings about the

necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges

and rights, a retraction justified by the

considerations underlying our penal system.” The court

ruled that “[d]iscipline by prison officials in

response to a wide range of misconduct falls within the

expected parameters of the sentence imposed by a court

of law.” In the case of a prisoner, the Due Process

Clause protects against the imposition of atypical and

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.

In the case at hand, the disciplinary board

punished Mr. Dotson as follows: (1) five (5) days of

punitive segregation, suspended for sixty (60) days;

(2) loss of six (6) months of visitation privileges;

and (3) payment of seventeen dollars and fifty cents

($17.50) for the drug screen. This punishment fails to

rise to the level of imposing an atypical and

significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life. See Friedman v.

Bass . Accordingly, the defendant’s motion for summary

judgment is granted.

We concur in the Trial Court’s application of Sandin to

the fact of this case.

Subsequent to entry of the summary judgment, Mr. Dotson

made a motion to alter or amend which, as already noted, raises

the issue of Mr. Dotson’s not being given sufficient time to

obtain discovery depositions. The Court resolved this issue by

the following language in which we also concur:

On September 3, 1998 the Court entered a

memorandum opinion granting the motion for summary

judgment and dismissing the case. The Court ruled that

Mr. Dotson’s petition for a writ of certiorari must be

dismissed because the prison disciplinary board’s

punishment imposed on Mr. Dotson failed to rise to the
4

level of imposing an atypical and significant hardship

on him in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison

life which would give rise to due process protections. 

The court does not believe that an extension of time in

any amount will change this result. The motion to

alter or amend judgment is denied. Costs are taxed to

the petitioner.

For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the Trial

Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of costs

below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Dotson.

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________

Charles D. Susano, Jr., J.