Rule10of the Rules o f the Court of App eals o f Te nnesse e pro vides: 1 This Court, w ith the concurrence of all judges participating in the ca se, may affirm, reverse or modifythe actions of thetrial co urt bymemorandu m opinio n w hen a fo r mal opinio n w ou ldh av e nop re ce de ntial v al ue . Wh en a ca se is de ci de d by mem or an du m op in io n its hall be d esignate d “MEMORANDUM OPINIO N, ” sh all no t be publish ed, and shall not b e cited or reliedonfor any reason in any u nrelated case. (continu ed.. .) 

### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE

ATJAC KSON A ssi gne d onBrie fs April 6, 201 0 LORE NZ O J OHNS ON v . CORRECTI ONS CORPORATI ON

OF AMERICA, ET AL 

### . D irec t A p p ea l f

ro m th e C ircu it C o u rt fo r H a rd em a n C o u n ty N o. 9605 J. W eber M cC raw , Judge

N o. W 2009- 02162- C O A - R 3- C V - F i l ed M ay 10, 2010

T hi s i s an appe al i n a ci vi l r i ght s act i on fi l ed byt he A ppel l ant , a pr o s e l i t i gant
. D ur i ng t he c o u rse o f

th e p ro c e e d in g s , the A p p e llan t w a s in c a rc e ra ted . T h e trial c o u rt in v o lu n tar ily di s m i s s ed the A ppel l ant ’ s cl ai m pur s uantt o T ennes s ee Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 41. 02 upon f in d in g th a t th e A p p e llan t f a iled to p ro se c u te h is c a se . T h e A p p e llan t ap p e a ls th e d ism iss a l. F i nd i ng t hat the tr i al cou rtfai l ed t o rul e on several of the A pp el l ant’ s m oti on s and o bject i on s, w e re v e rs e th e tr ia l c o u rt ’s d is m is s a l a n d re m a n d f o r f u rt h e r p ro c e e d in g s . Tenn. R . A pp. P. 3. A ppe al as of R i ght ; Judg m e nt of

t he C i r c ui t C our t R e ve r s e d and R e m ande d J. S TEV EN S TAFF ORD , J
. , del i ver ed t he opi ni on of t he C our t , i n w hi ch A L AN E. H I GHERS , P .J ., W
. S. , and D AV I D R. F ARMER , J
. , j oi ned. L or enzo J ohns on, W aupun, W i s cons i n, pr o s e. M el i s s a K
. V an Pel t , J oh n A
. Y or k, J ames I
. Pent ecos t , J acks on, T ennes s ee, forthe appel l ees , C or r ect i ons C orpor at i on of A m er i ca. M E M OR AN DU M OP I NI ON 1(... continu ed) 1
At s ome po int d

urin gth es e proc ee di ng s, M r. Johns on w as mov ed

to ac or re ct io na l f

ac il ity in 2 Wisconsin. The De fendants’ Answ er do es n ot appear in theAppellate record. 3 The record

do es n ot co ntain a co py

of the D efendants’ resp onses. 4 -2- A ppel l ant , L or enzo J ohns on ( “M r . J ohns on”) , fi l ed a c om pl ai ntagai ns tA ppel l ee, Pr i s on R eal i t yT rus tI nc. / C or r ect i onal C orpor at i on of A m er i ca a nd W hi t evi l l e C orr ect i onal F a c ili tya n d A g e n ts T h e re o f (c o llec tiv e ly“ D e f

e n d a n ts” ) in th e H a rd e m a n C o u n tyC irc u it C our t on A pr i l 15, 2003. I n hi s compl ai nt , M r . J ohns on al l eged thatt he D efe ndant s vi ol at ed hi s ci vi l r i ght s byfai l i ng t o keep hi m s ecur e and s afe fr om a fel l ow i nm at e w ho w as a “di r ect threa t t o [M r. Jo h n so n ’s] he a lth , s a f e ty an d w ell b eing ”. A lso, on A p ri l 15 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. John son fil ed an A ffi dav i tof Ind i gen cyand a P aup er’ s O at h. A tthe tim e o f th e se fi l i ng s, M r . J o h n s o n w a s i n c a r c e r a t e d i n t h e W h i t e v i l l e C o r r e c t i o n a l F a c i l i t y. 2 O n S e p tem b e r 8 , 2 0 0 3 , M r. Jo h n so n f iled “ A R e b u ttl e B rie f o f F a c ts” in re sp o n se to th e D e f e n d a n ts’ A n sw e r. M r. Jo h n so n th e n f iled a m o tio n f

o r a n e x te n s io n o f

tim e to 3 re sp o n d to D e f

e n d a n ts’ in ter ro g a to rie s o n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 0 4 . T h e D e f e n d a n ts f iled a re sp o n se to t hi s m ot i on on J une 18, 2004, s t at i ng t hat t hey had no obj ect i on t o the mot i on. O n J une 24, 2004, M r . Johnson f

i l ed hi s ans w er s t o t he D efe ndant s ’ i nt err ogat or i es and r eques t s for p ro d u c tio n o f

d o c u m e n ts
. M r . J ohns on fi l ed hi s r eques t for pr oduct i on of document s and i nt err ogat or i es t o t he D efe ndant s on O ct ober7, 2004. A l so , o n O ctober7, 2004, M r . J ohns on fi l ed a mot i on r eques t i ng t hathe be a l l ow ed t o fi l e l at e r es pons es t o t he D efe ndant s ’ i nt err ogat or i es i n or der t o corr ectand compl et e hi s pr evi ous l yfi l ed ans w er s . M r . J ohns on fi l ed anotherr eques tfor pr oduct i on of document s byt he D efe ndant s on J ul y12, 2005. A l s o on thi s day , M r . J ohns on f iled a n o tice th a t h e w a s f ili n g a se c o n d se t o f re q u e sts f o r p ro d u c tio n o f

d o c u m e n ts. In th is not i ce, he r eques t s t hatt he tr i al cour tpr ovi de hi m w i t h a copyof t h e T en n esse e R ul es of Ci v i l P r o c e d u r e , a n d t o r e s e n d t h e De f e n d a n t s ’ r e s p o n s e s t o h i s i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s . On S e p tem b e r 1 9 , 2 0 0 5 , M r. Jo h n so n f iled a n o b

jec tio n to th e D e f

e n d a n ts’ a n sw e rs to h is in terrogat ori es. A l so, on S eptem ber 19, 2005 , M r. John son fil ed a m oti on t o co m pe l, 4 r eques t i ng t hatt he tri al c o u rt ent eran or dercompel l i ng t he D efe ndant s t o pr ovi de the m at er i al s r eques t ed i n hi s r eques tfor pr oduct i on of docum ent s . M r . J ohns on fi l ed a s econd m ot i on on Sept ember 19, 2005, r eques t i ng t hat t he t r i al cour t or der t he courtcl erk t o pr ovi de hi m w i t h copi es of t he document s s ubm i t t ed byt he D efe ndant s and M r . J ohns on s ent$5. 00 f o r th e c o st o f

th e c o p ies . M r. Jo h n so n c o n ten d e d in th is m o tio n th a t th e m a il ro o m a t h is-3-

corr ect i onal fac i l i t y“negl i g en tl yl os t ” pr evi ous l ys entcopi es . M r . J ohns on fi l ed another obj ect i on t o t he D efe ndant s ’ ans w er s t o i nt err ogat or i es and a mot i on t o compel on N ovember 18, 2005. T hes e r ai s e the s am e arg um ent s and make the s ame r eques t s t hatM r . J ohns on p re se n ted in h is o b

jec tio n a n d m o tio n s f

iled o n S e p tem b e r 19 , 2 0 0 5
. T h e re a re n o o rd e rs in th e re c o rd in d ic a tin g th a t th e tr ia l c o u rt ru le d o n th e s e m o tio n s a n d o b je c tio n s . M r . J ohns on fi l ed a mot i on forchange of venue on Sept ember1, 2006. Fr om t he appel l at e r ecor d i tappea r s t hatno fur t heract i on i n thi s ca se o cc urr ed unt i l J ul y17, 2009, w hen the D efe ndant s fi l ed a M ot i on t o D i s m i s s forFai l ur e t o Pr os ecut e. M r . J ohns on fi l ed a re sp o n se to the D ef

en d an ts’ m o ti o n to d ism iss o n A u g u st 1 3 , 2 0 0 9
. In h is r esp o n se, M r. J ohns on cont ended thathe had “ di l i gent l ypur s ued thi s act i on. . . . ” H e expl ai ned thathe had fi l ed a mot i on forchange of venue i n Sept ember2006 and w hen he r eques t ed a de ci s i on on hi s m ot i on, he had be en i nform ed bythe cl erk of the courtt o m ake a l l futur e fil ings i n t he S tate o f W isc o n sin , as th a t is w h e re h e n o w re sid e d . M r. Jo h n so n sta ted th a t b a se d o n th is l et t er , he then r e- fi l ed hi s act i on i n W i s cons i n, butthe act i on w as di s m i s s ed. M r . J ohns on al s o i ndi cat ed t hat he sent a l et t ert o the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s tr i ct of Tennes s ee r eques t i ng as s i s t ance i n t hi s cas e. I n hi s r es pons e, M r . J ohns on r eques t s t hat t he D efe ndant s ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s be deni ed and a s chedul i ng or der be ent er ed. H e att ache d to h is r esp o n se a c o p y o f th e lett er f rom the c o u rtclerk instructing h im to m ak e a ll fu ture f ili n g s in W isc o n sin , a c o p yo f h is c o m p lain t f

iled in W isc o n sin , an d a c o p y o f h is le tter to t he U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ctC our tforthe W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Tennes s ee. O n Sept ember8, 2009, M r . J ohns on, beca us e he w as notgoi ng t o be al l ow ed to att end the hea r i ng by t el eph on e, fi l ed a l et t er w i t h the C ou rtcon t ai ning fu rther ar gu m ent agai nstt he D efen dan t s’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s. I n hi s l et t er , M r . J ohns on agai n as s ert ed thatthe tr i al cour tneverrul ed on his m oti on t o ch ang e ven ue, and argued t hat i tw ou l d b e an ab use of dis cret i on t o d i sm i ss h is c o m p la in t w ith o u t ru lin g o n h is m o tio n . A hear i ng w as hel d on Sept ember 8, 2009, on the D efe ndant s ’ M ot i on t o D i s m i s s for Fai l ur e t o Pr os ecut e. T he tri al cour tent er ed an or deron Sept ember15, 2009 gr ant i ng the D e f e n d a n ts’ m o tio n a n d d ism iss in g M r. Jo h n so n ’s c laim . T h e trial c o u rt f o u n d th a t in Sept ember2006 M r . J ohns on fi l ed a mot i on t o t r ans fervenue, and thats i nce t hen no further act i on had been t aken. Fi ndi ng t hatno act i on had bee n t aken i n al m os tt hr ee y ear s , t he tr i al cour tdi s m i s s ed the ca s e. M r . J ohns on t i m el yfi l ed a not i ce of appea l on O ct ober13, 2009 r ai s i ng one i s s ue for ourr evi ew : w hethert he tr ial co u rtabus ed i t s di s cr et i on w hen i tdi s m i s s ed hi s appea l for f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te
. R ule 41

. 02 of t he T enn essee R ules of C i vil P rocedu re al l ow s a tri al cou rtt o d i sm i ss an ac t i on bas ed upon the pl ai nt i ff’ s fai l ur e t o pr os ecut e. T he purpos e of thi s rul e i s t o al l ow-4-

the tri al co u rt“to m an ag e it s o w n d o ck et, an d to p rotec t d ef en d an ts a g ains t plainti ff s w h o are unw i l l i ng t o putt hei rcl ai m s t o t he t es t , butdet erm i ned t o s ubj ec t them t o t he cont i nui ng t hr eatof an e ventual j udgm ent
. ” O s agie v. P eakload , 91 S. W
. 3d 326, 329 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2002)

. T he decis i on t o di s m i s s a cl ai m forfai l ur e t o pr os ecut e r es t s w i t hi n t he s ound d is c re tio n o f

th e tr ia l c o u rt
. I

d . T his C ou rt w i l l no t ov erturn that deci si on absent an abu se o f d is c re tio n . I

d . A t r i al cour tabus es it s d iscreti o n w hen i thas appl i ed an i ncorr ectl egal s t andar d or has r eac hed a deci s i on w hi ch i s agai ns tl ogi c orr eas oni ng t hatcaus ed an i nj us t i ce to th e p a rt yc o m p la in in g . E ldr idge v. E ldr idge , 4 2 S
. W
. 3 d 8 2 , 8 5 (T en n . 2 0 0 1 ). A s t hi s C our thas pr evi ous l ys t at ed:

A p p e llate c o u rts f

re q u e n tlyh a v e b e e n c o n f ro n ted w ith cas es i n w hi ch the tr i al courts have di s pos ed of c l ai m s ei t her fi l ed byoras s er t ed aga i ns ts el f- r epresent ed pr i s oner s w i t hout fi r s taddr es s i ng t he pr i s oner ' s pendi ng m ot i ons . N o m at t er w hethert he pr i s oneri s the pl ai nt i ff or t he defe ndant , r evi ew i ng cour t s have c ons i s t ent l yhel d thattr i al cour t s errw hen they proceed to adjudicat e t he m eri t s of t he clai m w i t ho ut fi rs t add res si ng t he p ri soner' s pend i ng m oti on or m oti on s. T hese over s i ght s have ge ner al l ybeen f ound t o be pr ej udi ci al r ather t han harm l es s beca us e the fa i l ur e t o addr es s pendi ng m ot i ons "gi ves t he im press i on that a l i t i gan ti s bei ng i gn ored, " L ogan v. W instead , 23 S
. W
. 3d [29 7, ] 30 3 [(T enn . 20 00 )]

. W e hav e al so hel d t hat a pri s oner ' s fai l ur e t o compl yw i t h l ocal rul es r equi r i ng m o tio n s to b e se t f

o r h e a rin g d o e s n o t p ro v id e a trial co u rt w ith a n e x c u s e f

o r f a ilin g to a d d re s s th e p e n d in g m o tio n s . Ch a sta in v. Ch a sta in , [ N o . M2 0 0 3

- 0 2 0 1 6

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 4 WL 7 2 5 2 7 7 , * 2 ( T e n n . C t
. A p p . M a r c h 2 2 , 2 0 0 4 ) ]
. A c c o r d i n g l y, w h e n a t r i a l c o u r th a s f

a i l e d t o ru l e o n a n i n c a r c e r a t e d l i t i g a n t 's pendi ng mot i o n s , r evi ew i ng cour t s have c ons i s t ent l yvaca t ed the ju d g m e n t an d re m a n d e d th e c a se to th e trial c o u rt w ith dir ect i on s t o co nsi der and acton the p end i ng m oti on s. Be l l v. Todd , 2 0 6 S. W
. 3d 86, 91 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. 2005) ( footnot e omi t t ed)

. T hus , the tr i al c o u rt e rr s w h e n it f

a ils to ru le o n a p ri s o n e r’ s p e n d in g m o tio n s . S e e , e .g ., L ogan v. W instead, 23 S. W
. 3d at303 ( vaca t i ng a s um m aryj ud g m entdi s m i s s i ng a pr i s oner ' s l egal m al pr act i ce c laim b e c a u se th e trial c o u rt h a d n o t co n sid e re d o r a c ted u p o n th e p riso n e r' s m o tio n to h o ld th e c a se in a b e y a n c e ); Ver m il li on v. Ver m il

lion , N o . E 2 0 0 1

- 0 0 2 4 1

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 2 WL 5496, at*2 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. J an. 2, 2002) ( vaca t i ng a di vor ce decr ee a gai ns ta pr i s oner b e c a u se th e tria l c o u rt h a d n o t ru led o n h is m o tio n to sta yth e p ro c e e d in g p e n d in g h is-5-

re lea se ); State ex r el

. W ar r en v. Fer

guson , N o . W2 0 0 0

- 0 2 0 2 7
- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 1 WL 987162, at*4 ( T enn. C t
. A pp. A ug. 20, 2001) ( vaca t i ng a defa ul t j udgm ent agai ns ta pr i s oner b ec au se th e tri al co u rth ad n o t ru led o n p en d in g p re -tri al m o ti o n s, inclu d ing a d isco v ery m o ti o n , a m o ti o n to b e p erm itted to test ify , an d a m o ti o n to h o ld the ca se in ab ey an ce ); T h o mp s o n v. H

a m m o n d , N o . 0 2 A 0 1 -9 8 0 8 -C V -0 0 2 2 1 , 1 9 9 9 W L 1 8 8 2 9 2 , a t * 5 -6 (T e n n . C t. A pp . A pr. 6, 19 99 )( rever si ng a sum m aryj ud gm ent di sm i ssi ng a pri soner' s compl ai nt because th e tr ia l c o u rt h a d f

a ile d to a c t o n th e p ri s o n e r's m o tio n to c o m p e l d is c o v e ry). U pon o u r re v iew o f t he r ecor d, w e fi nd t hatthe tr i al cour tfai l ed t o rul e on s ever al m o ti o n s an d o b

jecti o n s m ad e b yM r. Jo h n so n . T h ere fo re, th is C o u rt fin d s that the tri al co u rt a b u se d its d isc re tio n in su m m a rilyd ism iss in g M r. Jo h n so n ’s c a se f o r f a ilu re to p ro se c u te w ith o u t ru lin g o n M r. J o h n so n ’s p e n d in g m o tio n s. A c c o rd in g ly , the trial c o u rt’s d e c isio n to di s mi s s M r . J o h n s o n ’ s a c t i o n i s r e v e r s e d a n d t h i s c a s e i s r e ma n d e d t o t h e t r i a l cour t for f u rt h e r a c tio n in a c c o rd a n c e w ith th is o p in io n . C os t s of thi s appea l ar e as s es s ed aga i ns tthe A ppel l ees , C orr ect i ons C orpor at i on of A m e ri c a , e t a l, f

o r w h ic h e x e c u tio n m a yis s u e if n e c e s s a ry.

_________________________________ J
. S T E VE N S T AF F OR D, J UDGE