### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS D E CE MB E R 1 3, 200 5
RODNEY M. BUTLE R v. QUENT IN W HI TE, COMMI SSI ONER, ET AL 

### .

Direc t Appeal from the Chancer y Court for Laud erdale County No. 13, 098 Mar tha B. Brasf ield, Chan cellor

No. W2005-01382-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Janu ary 12, 2006

Th e priso n d isc ipl ina

ry bo ardfo un d th e priso ne r g uil ty on nu me ro us oc c a sio ns of re fu sin g to s ub mit to a drug scre en. Af

ter e x hausting his administrative appeals, the prisoner filed a pro se pe tition for
a writ of certiorari in the chancery court to conte st the convi ct ions. The trial court dismi ssed the prisoner’ s petition citing his failure to file it within t he applica ble statute of limitations. The prisoner appea led to this Court. Beca use the prisone r wa s relea sed fr om prison during the pendenc y of the
case in the trial court, we vacate the trial court’s order and rema nd this c ase for the entry of an or der dis mis sin g thepe tit ionon theg ro un d o f m oo tne ss.

Te nn. R . A pp. P . 3 ; A ppe al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t heCha nc e r y C our t V ac at e d and Rem anded

A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in w hich D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
Rodney M. Butler , pro s e , J ackson, TN

Pau l G

. Su mm e r s , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l & Re p o rte r ; Mi c h a e l E

. M o o r e , So li c it o r G e n e r a l; B r a d le y

W. Flippin, Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

AppelleeR ule 1 0 o f t he R ules o f

t he C o urt o f

A p p ea l s o f

T en ne ssee p ro vid es a s fo l l o w s: 1

T h i s Cou r t , w i t h t h e c on c u r r e n c e of a l l j u dg e s pa r t i c i pa t i n g i n t h e c a s e , ma y a f f i r m,
revers e o r mo d i f

y th e a c tions of

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a for mal opi n i on w ou l d h av e n o pr ec ede n t i al v al u e. W hen a cas e i s de ci ded by

m e m o ra n d u m o p inio n it sh a ll b e d e sig n a te d “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ” , sha ll

no t be pub l i s h ed, an d s h al l n ot be ci t ed t o or r el i ed on f or an y r ea s on i n any
un r el at ed cas e.

T h e Commi s s i on er ’ s m ot i on was ac compa n i ed by t h e af f i dav i t of J ea n n et t a K i mbr o, Se n t en ce M an ag er for 2

t he T D O C , wh o at t es t ed t hat B ut l er was r el eas ed f r om pri s on on t he aforemen t i oned dat e a f t er comp l et i ng hi s s ent enc e.
-2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

I. F A C TUA L B ACKG ROUND AND P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY
When this l awsuit was origina lly filed i n t h e t ri al court, Rodney M. Butler

(“B utler” or “Appe llant”) was an inm ate in the custody of the Te nnessee Depa

rtment of Corre ction (“TD OC”) being housed at West Tenne ssee St ate Penitentiary in Henning , Tenne ssee. B etwee n J uly 24, 2001
a ndOc tob e r 7 , 2 00 3, thepriso n’ s d isc ipl ina ry bo ardfound B utl e r g uil ty of e le ve n s e pa

rate incidence s of re fusing to submitto a drug scre en. B utler appe aled a ll of the these convictions to the prison’s war den who uphe ld the convictions. Butler ’s most rece nt conviction was a ffirme d by the
war den on De cembe r 4, 2003.

OnSe pte mbe r 2 8, 20 04 , B utl e r f ile d a pr o s e “ Pe tit ion fo r Wri t of Ce rt ior ari ” a g a ins t Q ue nti n Whi t e , T D O C C o m m i s s i o n e r ( “ Com mis sio ne r” or

“ Ap pe lle e ” ), in the Chanc e ry Cou rt of L aud e rd a le Countyseeking to challeng e the pr opriety of his disciplinary co n v i ct ions. There afte r, the Com mis sio ne r f

ile d a mot ionse e kin g to h a ve B utl e r’ s p e tit iondis mis se d f or , amo ng oth e r thin g s, his failure to file the petition within the six ty (60) day statute of limit ations set forth in sec tion 27-9- 102 of th e T e n n e s s e e Co d e

. O n M a y 3 , 2 0 0 5 , th e c h a n c e r y

c o u rt e n te r e d a n o r d e r

d is mi s s ing But l er ’s p et i tion citing his failure to file it within t he applica ble statute of limitations. Butler subsequently

filed a pr o se appe al to this Court presenting numerous issues for our re view.

Du ri ng thepe nd e nc y

of th e pr e se nt a

pp e a l, the Com mis sio ne r f ile d a mot iona sking thi s Cou rt to d ism iss B utl e r’ s a

pp e al

. T h e r e i n , the Com mis sio ne r a lle g e d th a t B utl e r’ s a pp e a l is pr e se ntl y moot due to his re lease from prison on Marc h 2, 2005. On Octobe r 12, 2005, this Court entere d an 2 Orde r denying the Commi ssioner’s motion, but we did not pre clude the Commissioner from r aising the moo tn e s s is s u e in h is b r ie f

. U p o n f u rth e r r e v ie w , w e h o ld th a t th e p r e s e n t ap p e al is not jus tic ia bleun de r the do c trineof

moo tne ss.-3- II. A N A L Y SIS We have pr eviously

explained the doctrine of

mootness in the contex t of an a ppeal involving a p ri s o n er , s t at i n g:
The doc trine of justiciabilityprompts courts to stay their hand in c a se s th at do no t in vo lvea g e nu inea nde xistin g c on tr ov e rs y r e q u irin g th e p r e s e n t a d

ju d ic a ti o n o f p r e s e n t r ig h ts. Sta te ex re l. Le wis v . S tate , 208 Tenn. 534, 5 3 7 , 3 4 7 S.W .2d 47, 48 (1961); Do c k e ry v . D oc k e ry , 559 S.W .2d 952, 9 5 4 (T en n. Ct. App. 1977). Thus, our courts will not rende r advisory opinions, Su

pe r Fle a M

k t. of Chattanooga v. Olsen , 6 77 S.W. 2d44 9, 45 1 ( Te nn . 1 98 4) ; Parks v. Alexander , 608 S.W .2d 881, 892 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1980), or dec ide abstrac t leg al questions. St at e ex re l. L e wis v . S tate , 208 Tenn. at 538, 347 S.W .2d at 49. Cases m ust be jus ticiable not only when they are first filed but must also remain justiciable throughout the entire c ourse of the l i tigation, i ncluding the appeal

. Lewis v. Conti nental Bank Corp. , 494 U.S. 472, 477, 110 S. C t. 1249, 1253, 108 L . Ed. 2d 400 (1990); Kremens v . Bartley , 431 U.S. 119, 128-29, 97 S. Ct. 1709, 1715, 52 L . Ed. 2d 184 (1977); 13A Charles A. Wright e t al., Fede ral Practice

an d P ro c e du re §§ 3533, 3533.10 (2d ed. 1984) ( “F eder al Prac tice and Procedur e”) . The c oncept of mootness deals with the circ umstances that rende r a c ase no long er justiciable. Davis v. M cClaran , App., 1993 Tenn. App. L

EXI S 760, No. 01- A-01-9304- CH-00164, slip op. at 2 , 19 T.A.M. 1-3 (T enn. Ct. App. Dec . 10, 1993), perm. app. granted (T en n

. Mar. 28, 1994) (“mootness is a doc trine of justiciabilit y ”); F eder al Prac tice and Proc edure § 3533, at 211. A moot case is one that has lost its chara cter as a prese nt, live controve rsy

. Mc Can le ss v . Kl e in , 182 Tenn. 631, 637, 188 S .W.2d 74 5, 74 7 ( 19 45 ); Krug v. Krug , 838 S.W .2d 197, 204 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992 ); LaR ou c he v . Cr

owe ll , 709 S.W .2d 585, 587 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985). The centr al question in a mootness inquiry

is whether c hang es in the circ umstances e x isting at the be g in n ing of the litigation have fore stalled the nee d for meaningf ul relief. Fe d eral Practice and Procedur e § 3533.3, at 261. A case wil l g ener ally be conside red moot if it no longe r serve s as a means to pr ovide relief t o t h e p revailing party

. Church of Scientology v. U nited States , [506 U.S . 9, 12], 113 S. Ct . 4 47 , 4 49 (1 99 2) ; Kno tt v . S te wart Co un ty , 185 Tenn. 623, 626, 20 7 S.W. 2d 33 7, 33 8- 39 (1 94 8) ; Ma sse ng ill v . M as se ng ill , 36 Tenn. App. 385, 388-89, 255 S.W.2d 1018, 1019 (1952).-4-

McIntyre v. Traughber , 884 S.W .2d 134, 137 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994) (e mphasis added) . Thus, an appea l filed by

a prisoner may become moot by virtue of the prisoner’ s rele ase from prison during the pende ncy

of the litigation. See id.

Th is C ou rt

pr e vio us ly a dd re sse d the jus tic ia bil ity of a n app e a l fi le d by a priso ne r i n a

c a se fac tually simil ar to the one presently befor e the Court. I n Eas le y v . Br itt , No. M1998-00971-COAR3-CV, 2001 Tenn. App. L EXI S 771, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oc t. 16, 20 0 1 ), the prisoner was convicted of

robbery and sente nced to twe nty

y ear s in prison. W hile participating in the prison’s work re lease prog ram, the prisoner failed to return to the prison at the desig nated time. Id. The TDOC cha

rg ed the prisoner with the disciplinary offe nse of esca pe, and the prison disciplinary board ultimately

found him g uiltyof the off ense. Id. As a re sult, the TDOC removed the prisoner f rom t h e wo rk re lease prog ram a nd rec lassified him as an medium sec urity inmate. Id. at *2–3. Afte r exh au s ti n g h is a d mi n is tr a ti v e ap p e a ls , th e p r is o n e r f il e d a p r o s e w r it

f o r c o mm o n la w c e rtior ari alleg ing that the prison’s disciplinary board e rre d in finding him g uiltyof esc ape. Id. at *3. The trial court a ffirme d the boar d’s dec ision an d d i s m i s s ed the prisoner’s a ppeal. Id. The prisone r subsequently

filed an a ppeal to this Court. Id.
During the pende ncy

of the a ppeal, we learned that the prisoner had be en re lease d from prison. Id. Taking notice of this post-judgme nt fac t pursuant to Rule 14 of t he Tennessee Rules of Ap p el l at e P ro ce d u re , we n o t ed t h e f o l l o wi n g:
Whe n M r. Ea sle y

fi le d th is ap pea l, h is p ur po se wa s to convince this court that we should vac ate the trial court’s dismissal of his pe tit ionfo r c omm on -l a w w ri t of c e rt ior ari a ndthat we sh ou ld send the c ase ba ck to the trial c ourt to determine w hether the disciplinary board had acte d arbitra rily and capriciously

. T he ultimate relief hesoug ht was to clea r his disciplinary

rec ord so that he could r eturn to his minimum security classification a nd could be place d back in the w ork re lease prog ram at the NCSC for the
re ma ind e r o f h is s e nte nc e . M r. Ea sle y ’s re le a se c a lls thejus tic ia bil ity of this case into question. T h e c o u rts , b e in g c ar e f

u l s te w ar d s o f

th e ir p o w e r , h ave develope d various justiciabilityprinciples to serve as g uidelines for de te rm ini ng wh e the r p ro vid ing jud ic ia l r e lie f i n a pa rt ic ula r cas e is
war rante d. To be jus ticiable, a case must invol ve pre sently exis ting rig hts , li v e is s u e s th a t ar e w ith in a c o u rt’ s p o w e r to r e s o lv e, and parties who ha ve a le g ally cog nizable interest i n the re solution of these issues. A case is not justiciable if it doe s not involve a g enuine, exis ting c ontroversy requiring the adjudication of pre sently exis ting rig hts. State v. Brown & W illiamson T

obacco Co. , 18 S.W .3d 186, 19 3 ( Te nn . 2 00 0) ; Sta te ex re l. L e wis v . S tate , 2 0 8 T en n . 534, 537, 3 4 7 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 , 4 8 ( 1 9 6 1) ; Fo rd Consumer Fin. Co. v. Clay , 984 S.W .2d 615, 616 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).T h e c o u rts o f t h is sta te h a v e r e c o g n iz e d s e v e ra l ex c e p tio n s to the d o c trine o f m o o tne ss, M cIn t yre , 884 S. W

. 2d 3

a t 1 3 7 , no n e o f wh ic h a p p ly t o the p re se n t ca se

. -5-

The re quirements for

litigation t o continue are e ssentially the
sam e as the re quirements for litigation to beg in. Charter Lakeside Behav ioral Health Sys. v. Tennesse e He alth Faciliti es Comm’n , 2001 Tenn. App. L

EXI S 58, M 1 9 9 8 -0 0 9 8 5 -C OA -R 3 -C V, 2001 WL 72342, at *5 (Te nn. Ct. App. J an. 3 0 , 2001) (No T enn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Thus, case s must re main justiciable throug hout the entire c ourse of

the litigation, including the appe al. Sta te v . E ly , 48 S.W. 3d 71 0, 71 6 n .3 (T e nn . 2 00 1) ; Cashion v. Robertson , 955 S.W .2d 60, 62-63 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). A m oot case is one that has lost it s justiciabilit y

beca use it no longe r pre sents a pres ent, l ive controversy

. Mc Can le ss v . Kl e in , 182 Tenn. 631, 637, 188 S.W.2d 74 5, 74 7 ( 19 45 ); Co u n tyo f Sh e lb y v
. M c W h e rter , 936 S.W .2d 923, 93 1 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 6) ; McI ntyre v . Traughber , 884 S.W .2d 134, 13 7 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 4) . T hu s, a c a se wi ll be c on sid e re d mo ot i f it no longe r serves as a means to provide some sort of judicial re lief to the prevailing party

. Kno tt v . S te wart Co un ty , 185 Tenn. 623, 626, 20 7 S .W .2 d 3 37 , 3 38 -3 9 ( 19 48 ); Ford Consumer Fin. Co. v. Clay , 98 4 S. W.2 d at 61 6; Ma sse ng ill v . M as se ng ill , 3 6 T e n n

. A p p . 385, 388-89, 255 S.W.2d 1018, 1019 (1952). De te rm ini ng wh e the r a

c a se or a n i ss ue ha s b e c omemoo t is a question of law

. Charter Lakeside Behav ioral Health Sys. v. Tennessee Health Facilities Comm’n , 2001 W L 72342, at *5; Orlando Residenc e, Ltd. v. Nashville Lodging C o. , 1999 Tenn. App. LEXI S 762, No. M1999-00943-COA- R3-CV, 1999 WL 1040544, at *3 (Ten n

. Ct

. A p p

. N o v

. 1 7 , 1 9 9 9 ) ( N o T e n n

. R. A p p

. P. 11 application filed) . Thus, unless t h e ca s e fits wit hin one of the
re c og nize d e xce pti on s to themoo tnes s d oc trine , thec ou rt s w ill 3 ordinarily vacate the judg ment and re mand the ca se to the trial court with direc tions that it be dismiss ed. Ford Consumer Fin. Co. v. Clay , 98 4 S. W.2 d at 61 7; McI

ntyre v . Traughber , 884 S.W .2d at 138.

Id. at *4–7 (footnote omitted). Due to his re lease from prison during the pende ncy of the a ppeal, we held that this Court could no longe r g rant the prisoner the relief he re quested in his petition. Id. at *8. Acc ording ly , we de termined that the prisoner’s a ppeal wa s moot. Id.
Turning to the prese nt appea l, in his petit ion, Butler r equeste d th at t h e trial court f ind the priso n d isc ipl ina

ry bo ard ’s a c tio ns to b e “ arb itr ary a ndill e g a l,” dis mis s th e dis c ipl ina ry c on vic tio ns , and remove t he convictions from his disciplinary rec ord. Rely ing on our re asoning in Easley , we hold that the prese nt appea l has bec ome moot due to Butler ’s re lease from prison prior to t he entry of the trial c ourt’s orde r in this case.-6- III
. C ONCL US I ON
“The ordinary

prac tice in disposing of

a ca se that has be come moot on appea l is to vacate the judgme nt and remand t he case with direc tions that itbe dismissed.” Mc Inty re , 884 S.W .2d at 138; see also Easley , 2001 Tenn. App. L EXI S 771, at *8. I n acc ordanc e with this practice , we va cate the trial court’ s order

and re mand this case to the trial court with direc tions that But l er ’s petition be dismiss ed on the g round of mootness. Costs of t his appea l are to be tax ed to the Appe llant, Rodney M

. B u t l e r , f

o r w h i c h e x e c u t i o n m a y i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE