### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS MA Y 25, 200 4
JO HN E. ALLE N v. QUENT ON T. WH IT E, ET AL 

### . Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court for Lake Coun ty No. 03-8491 Lee Moore , Jr., Judge

No. W2004-00457-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Septem ber 23, 2004

This appea l conce rns the dismissal of a common law w rit of ce rtiorari by the C ircuit Court of L ake County . Appellant, an inmate in the custody of the Tenne ssee Depa

rtment of Correc tion, f

iled a pr o se Petition for Writ of C ertiora ri to challeng e the results of a prison disciplinary proce eding instit uted a g a ins t hi m. T he tr ia l c ou rt g rante d A pp e lle e ’s mot ionto d ism iss the pe tit iona s u nti me ly fi le d in violation of t he applicable st atute of limit ations. For the reasons stated below, w e af firm the dec ision of the trial c ourt.

Tenn. R. App . P . 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Circ uit Court Aff irm ed
A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J ., and H O LLY M. K I RBY , J ., joined.
J ohn E. Allen, Tiptonville, TN, pro s e
P au l G

. S u m m e r s , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l & R e p o r t e r , M i c h a e l E

. M o o r e , S o l i c i t o r G e n e r a l , J e n n i f

e r L. Br enner , Assistant Attorney Gene ral, Na shville, TN, for Appe lleesR 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: 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 t he act i o ns o f th e tri 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 h en a case 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 not be publ i s hed, an d s hal l not b e ci t ed or re l i ed on f or any reas on i n a ny un r el at ed
cas e.
A t t he t i m e o f

t his i nc i d en t , M r. A l l en share d a c ell w i t h ano t he r i nm ate, M r. Ja m es S l ate. P ris o n o f f i cials al so 2

c h a rg e d M r. S la te w ith p o sse ssio n o f a d e a d ly we a p o n
.

T he reco rd i s d evo i d of d o cum ent at i o n s ho wi ng M r. A l l en exerci sed hi s ri ght t o ad m i ni st rat i ve ap p eal

. T he 3

r ecor d onl y cont ai ns a l et t er ad dres s ed t o M r
. Al l en f r om t he T D O C , dat ed Jul y 23, 200 3, i n w hi ch t he T D O C s t at es t hey h a d ye t t o re c e ive a n a p p e a l as o f t h a t d a te

. -2- M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1
I. F acts and P roce edings i n the Court Below
J ohn E. Allen (“ Mr. Allen” o r “Appellant”) is a n inmate in the custody of the Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction (“TD OC”) at the Northwe st Correcti onal Complex located in L ake County , Tenne ssee. On May 27, 2003, the per sonnel at the fa cility conducte d a routine administrative sea

rch of Mr. Allen’s c ell b l o ck

. During the sea rch, a prison g uard a lleg ed that he observe d a homemade knife c ome from unde rneath Mr. Allen’s ce ll d o o r o n t o the adjoining wa lkw a y
. Th is l e d to dis c ipl ina ry c ha rg e s be ing fi le d a g a ins t Mr . A lle n f or po sse ssi on of

a de a dly 2
wea pon. The prison disciplinary board c onducted a

hearing on June 6, 2003, resulting in Mr. Allen being sentenc ed to disciplinary seg reg ation for a

period of te n day s. Ac co rdi ng to Mr. Allen, he appea led the disciplinary board’ s determination to the warden of the fac ility , Mr. Tony Parker , and to TDOC Commi ssioner Quen t o n T

. W hite (the “ Commi ssioner”) , both of whom aff irmed the disciplinary

board’ s findings. On J uly 23, 2003, Mr. Allen re ceive d a letter from the TD OC 3 Assista n t Co mm is s io n e r o f O p e r a ti o n s in f o r mi n g h im th a t h is s e n te n c e w o u ld n o t b e e xte n d ed as the re sult of the disciplinary conviction, there fore any future a ppeal would be denied.
Mr. Allen then filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari pur suant to Tennesse e Code Annotated sections 27-8-101 and 27-8-102 in the Circuit Court of L ake County on October

22, 2003. Mr. Allen alleg ed that his Due Process rights had bee n violated, and that the disc iplinary board f ailed to follow T DO C p ro ce d u re s at t h e ad m i n i s tra t i v e he ar i n g. On De ce m b er1 , 2 0 0 3 , t h e C o m m i s s i o n er , t h ro u gh the Off ice of the Attorney

Gene ral, filed a

Motion for Ext ension of Time with the circ uit court asking for a dditional tim e i n wh i ch t o respond to Mr. Allen’ s petition. The circ uit court g rante d the Commi ssioner’s motion on Dec ember 4, 2003, g iving the Commi ssioner unt il Dec ember 31, 2003, to file a re sponse. On the sa me day that the circ uit court g rante d the Co m m issioner’s Motion for Exte ns ionof

Ti me , th e Com mis sio ne r f ile d a Mo tio n to Di smi ss p ur su a nt t o Te nn e sse e Rul e of Civ il Procedur e 12.02(6) , alleg ing that Mr. Allen’s petition was ba rre d by the statute of limitations. The c ir c uit c ou rt iss ue d a n o rd e r o n D e c e mber 11 , 2 00 3, g ivi ng Mr . A lle n u nti l Jan ua ry 18 , 2 00 4, to respond to the Commi ssioner’s mot ion. On December 15, 2003, Mr. Allen filed his re sponse to theT he C o m m i ss i o ner, al b ei t be l at ed l y , f i l ed a res p o nse t o M r. A l l en’ s P et i t i o n fo r D ef aul t Jud gm ent on F eb ruary 4 5, 2004, ar g u i n g t h at a r es pon s i v e pl ea di n g w as pe n di n g a n d t h at , pu r s u an t t o T en n es s ee Rul e of Ci v i l Pr oce du r e 55. 04, d e fau lt ju d g m e n t wa s im p ro p e r. -3- Com mis sio ne r’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss a lle g ing that, p ur su a nt t o th e Ten ness e e Rul e s o f C ivi l Procedur e, his ac tion was dee med filed when he placed it in the hands of the prison officials and that he had one y ear

in which to file his petition.
On J anuary

29, 2004, Mr. Allen filed a Petition for Default J udg ment with the circ uit court pu rs ua nt t o T e nn e sse e Rul e of Civ il Pr oc e du re55 , a lle g ing theCom mis sio ne r f a ile d to re sp on d to his Petit ion for a Writ of Certiora ri by the date set forth in the court’s order issued on Dec ember 4, 2003. On Fe bruary

2, 2004, the circ uit court enter ed an or der g ranting the Commiss ioner’s Motion to Dismi s s an d d en y i ng Mr. Allen’s Petition for De fault Judgment. Mr. Allen filed his notice of 4 appea l to this Court on Febr uary , 12, 2004, and pre sents, as we perc eive them, the f ollowing issues fo r o ur re vie w:
I

. Whe the r the statut e of lim itatio ns mus t be waive d wh e n Ap pe llant a lle g e s abs olu te inn oc e nc e of

the c ha rg e s le a din g to the dis c ipl ina ry pr oc e e din g s a g a ins t hi m; I I . Wh e the r the c ir c uit

c ou rt e rr e d b y g ranti ng theCom mis sio ne r’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss wi tho ut p e rm itt ing or a l arg ume nt; I I I . Wh e the r the cir c uit

c ou rt e rr e d b y faili ng to g rant A pp e llant’ s Mo tio n f or De fa ult J udg ment ag ainst the Commis sioner; and I V. W hether

the circ uit court held Appe llant, as a pro se inmate, to a stricter standard tha n a license d lawy er. II. Stand ard of Review
A motion to dis miss pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil P roce dure 12.02( 6) “a dmits t he truthof a ll r e le va nt andmat eri al ave rm e nts c on ta ine d inthe c omp la int , b ut a sse rt s th a t su c h f a c ts do not constitu t e a ca u s e o f action.” Stein v. Dav idson Hotel Co. , 945 S.W .2d 714, 716 (Tenn. 1997). “The failure to state a c laim upon which re lief can be g rante d is determined by an examination of th e complaint alone.” Gunter v. Lab. Corp. of Am. , 121 S.W .3d 636, 639 (Tenn. 2003). “When re viewing a dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12.02(6), this Court must take the fac tual alleg ations contained in the complaint as t rue and revie w t he trial court’s le g al conc lusions de novo without giving any presumption of corr ectne ss to those conclusions.” W illis v. Tenn. De

p’t of Cor r. , 1 13 S.W. 3d70 6, 71 0 (T e nn
. 20 03 ). “ B e c aus e a mot ionto d ism iss a

c omp la int

un de r r ule 12 .0 2( 6) c ha lle ng e s o nly

the le g a l su ff

ic ie nc y of the c omp la int , c ou rt s sh ou ld grant a motio n to dismiss only when it a

ppear s that the plaintiff can prove no se t of fac ts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to re lief.” Go re v . Te nn . D e p’ t of Cor r. , 132 S.W. 3d36 9, 37 3 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 2003).“ A pri s oner di s ci pl i nar y procee di ng ca nn ot be r evi ewed di r ect l y u n de r t h e Un i f or m A dm i ni s t r at i ve P r ocedur es 5 A ct b eca us e t he Act removes su ch procee di ng s f r om t he def

i ni t i on o f

a cont es t ed cas e. ” R ho den , 984 S. W

. 2d a t 956; T enn. C o d e A nn. § 4

- 5

- 1 0 6 (b) (20 0 3 ). -4- III . La w and A nal ys is

“ I n T e n n e s s e e , tw o ty

p e s o f c e r ti o r ari exist .” F a i rh a ven Corp. v. Tenn. Health Facilities Comm’n , 566 S.W .2d 885, 886 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1976). Mr. All en presented his Petition for W rit of Certiorari to the ci rcuit court below pursuant to Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 27-8-101, g overning common law writ s , o r i n the alternative, Te nnessee Code Annotated se ction 27-8-102, g overning statutory

writs. “T h e co m mon-law writ of certiorari serves as the pr oper pr ocedur al ve hic le thr ou g h wh ic h priso ne rs ma y se e k re vie w of de c isi on s by priso n d isc ipl ina ry bo ard s, pa

ro le e li g ib il ity b o ar d s , a n d o th e r s im il ar a d mi n is tr a ti v e trib u n a ls.” W ill is , 113 S.W .3d at 712 (c iting Rh od e n v
. Sta te De

p’ t of Cor r. , 984 S.W .2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998))

. There fore , we r eview 5 Mr . A lle n’ s a

pp e a l un de r the le g a l princ ipl e s g ov e rn ing a c omm on la w w ri t of

c e rt ior ari

. The trial c ourt is limi ted i n its revie w of a common law petiti on for a writ of ce rtiorari in the following manner :

Once the petition is filed, the court examines the proc eeding s of the lower tribuna l to de termine if that body exceede d its jurisdi ction, or ac t ed i l l ega l l y , fr au d u l en t l y , or ar bitrarily

. T

ur ne r v . Te nn e sse e Bo ar

d of Paroles , 9 93 S.W. 2d78 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 9) ; Y ok ley v . S tate , 63 2 S. W.2 d 1 23 (T e nn . Ct . App . 198 1)

. A c ha lle ng e to theint ri ns ic corr ectne ss of the inferior tribunal’s dec isio n i s normally dismiss ed as being outsi de the purview of the re viewing court. Hall v. McLesky , 83 S.W. 3d 75 2 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 1) ; Po we ll v . P arole El igi bil ity Re v ie w Bo ar

d , 879 S.W .2d 871 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994).
W aters v. Tenn. De

p’t of Corr., No. M2002-00917-COA- R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. L EXI S 512, at *8–9 (Tenn. Ct. App. J uly 24, 2003). “The issuance by the trial court of a writ of certiorari is not an adjudication of anything.

. . . [, but rathe r,] is simply a command by the trial court to the inferior tribunal or administrative a g ency to send t he re cord ma de bef ore the ag ency

in the proce eding to the court for review of that re cord.” Go re , 132 S.W .3d at 375. The c ircuit courts of this state ha ve concur rent jurisdiction over c ommon law petitions for writs of certiorari. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 9- 10 3 ( 20 03 ); Ha wk ins v . Te nn . D e p’ t of Cor r. , 127 S.W .3d 749, 756 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).
A. St atu te of Li mitati ons App lic ab le to P e tit ion fo r Wr

it o f C e rti or ar i
I n his first issue, Mr. Allen contests the c ircuit court’ s order g ranting the Commiss io ner’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss. Mr . Alle n ar g ue s tha t any statut e of lim itatio ns app lic able to a co mmo n la w w ri t of ce rtiorari must be wa ived when a bsolute innocenc e of a

disciplinary

infrac tion is allege d. Further,-5-

he asse rts that the Te n n essee Rules of Civil P roce dure se t forth a one -y ear statute of limitations applicable to his petiti on.

“ Th e le g isl a tur e ha s th e auth ority to pla c e re a so na ble statut ory lim itatio ns on the tim e wi thi n which ce rtiorari may

issue.” Fa irh av e n Co rp ., 566 S.W .2d at 886. The leg islature has provided that pe tit ion s f

or writs of c e rt ior ari are su bje c t to the fo llo wi ng lim itatio ns pe ri od : Such party

shall, within six ty

(60) day s from the e ntry

of the orde r or judgme nt, file a pe tition of certiora ri in the cha n ce ry co urt of any county in which any one (1) or more of the petitioners, or any one (1) or more of

the material defe ndants resid e, o r have their principa l office , stating briefly the issues involved in the cause , the substance of the orde r or judg ment complained of, of t he respects in which the petitioner claims the order or judgme nt is err oneous, and praying f or an ac cordant review

. Tenn. Code Ann. § 27- 9-102 (2003) . “This time limit applies to common law a s well as statutory writs.” Fairhaven Cor

p ., 56 6 S. W.2 d at 88 6. Th e ti me lim it s e t f orth i n th e statut e is b oth mandatory

and jurisdictional. Turner v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , 993 S.W .2d 78, 80 (Tenn. Ct. App. 19 99 ). F a ilu re to f

ile a pe tit ionfo r w ri t of

c e rt ior ari wi thi n th e tim e lim itatio n s e t f orth i n th e statut e results in the disciplinary b o ar d ’s d ec ision becoming final, and w ill deprive the c ircuit court of jurisdiction. Id .; Bi sh op v . Te nn . D e p’ t of Cor r. , 896 S.W .2d 557, 558 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Thandiw e v. Traughber , 9 09 S.W. 2d 80 2, 80 4 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 4) ; W he e le r v . Ci ty of M

e mp his , 685 S.W .2d 4, 6 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1984).
I n r e sp on din g to the Com mis sio ne r’ s Mo tio n to Di smi ss be low , Mr

. Al le n state d in h is r e ply that hi s p e tit ionwa s d e e me d f ile d w he n h e de liv e re d it int o th e ha nd s o f the priso n o ff ic ia ls. Although he cites to no authority for this proposition in his brief, Mr. Allen is appare ntly relying on Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Civ il Pr oc e du re 5. 06 , w hic h p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s:
I f pa pe rs re qu ir e d or pe rm itt e d to be fi le d pu rs ua nt to the ru le s o f c ivi l proce du re a

re pr epar ed by

or on beha lf of a pro se litigant incar cer ated in a c orre ctional fa cility and ar e not re ceive d by the cler k of the c ou rt un til a ft e r the tim e fi xedfo r f ili ng , f ili ng sh a ll b e tim e ly if th e p ap e r s w e r e d e li v e r e d to th e ap p r o p r iate in d iv id u al at the c o rr e c t i o n a l f

a c i l i t y withi n the time fixed for filing

. This p ro vision shall also apply

to service of pape r by

such litiga nt s p u rs u ant t o the rules of civil pr ocedur e. “Corre ctional fac ility ” shall include a prison, jail, coun t y workhouse or similar instit ution in which the pro s e litigant is incar cer ated. Should timeliness of fili ng or service becom e an issue, the burden is on the pro se litigant to establish compliance with t his provision

.A l t ho ugh t he reco rd co nt ai ns no ref erence t o t he ad m i ni st rat i ve p ro c e e d i ngs co nd uct ed by t he d i sci p l i nary 6 b o ard o n June 6 , 20 0 3 , t he Jul y 23 , 20 0 3 , l et t er at t ached t o M r. A llen ’s p e tit io n a s an exhi b i t de m o nst rat es t hat t he d isc ip lina ry b o a rd ’s d e c isio n w a s fina l b y the ti m e he re c e ive d the lette r a t t h e late st. -6- Tenn. R. Civ. P. 5.06 (2003) (emphasis adde d). Mr. Allen f ai l ed to car

ry this burden. We find nothing in the rec ord indicating the date on which he prese nted his pe tition to prison officia ls. Even in the abs e nc e of su c h pr oo f, ho we ve r, the re c or d su ff ic ie ntl y de mon str a te s that Mr

. Al le n faile d to comply with Rule 5

. 06. Mr. Allen’s Petition for Writ of Certiorari indicates that he sig ned the petition on October 15, 2003, and that it was filed with the cir cuit court on October 22, 2003. Giving Mr . Alle n the be ne fi t of the la te st pos sib le date on wh ic h the statut ory pe ri odc ou ld p os sib ly

be g in to run, J uly

23, 2003, the petition itself indicates that it was filed we ll bey ond the six ty day period. 6 See Johnson v. Corr. Corp. of Am. , No. W2001-00763-COA-R3-CV, 2001 Tenn. App. L EXI S 952, at *9–13 (Te nn. Ct. App. Dec. 11, 2001). Since M r. All en filed his P etition for Writ of Certiorari be y on d th e sixty

day pe ri odse t f

orth i n T e nn e sse e Cod e An no ta te d s e c tio n 2 7-9-1 02 , th e c ir c uit court wa s without jurisdi ction to enterta in the petition. See H ughes v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , No. M2003-00266-COA- R3-CV, 2004 Tenn. App. L EXI S 78, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). Although w e find the f

act that Mr. A llen filed his pe tition well bey ond the period permitted by s ec t i o n 2 7 -9 -102 of the Tennesse e Code to be dispositive of this appea l, we will addre ss the r e main in g is s u e s p r e s e n te d o u t o f c o n s id e r a ti o n to M r
. A lle n as a pro se app e llant. See Young v. Barrow , 1 30 S.W. 3d 59 , 6 2– 63 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . 2 00 3) ; Hessme r v. He ssmer , No. M2002-01024- CO A- R3- CV , 2 00 3 Te nn
. Ap p. LEX I S 34 6, a t *5 –6 (T e nn . Ct . A pp . M a y 12 , 2 00 3) ; Ir

v in v . Ci ty of C lar k sv ill e , 767 S.W .2d 649, 651–52 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988). B. Lack of a Hearing Below
Th e se c on d is su e pr e se nte d f or re vie w by Mr . Alle n co nc e rn s the c ir c uit c ou rt ’s de c isi on to g rant the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismi ss without p er m i t t i n g oral a rg ument. On Octobe r 22, 20 03 , M r. Al le n f

ile d a mot ionwi th the c ir c uit

c ou rt , a sking the cou rt

to c on du c t a

he ari ng on his petition. I n the orde r dismissing Mr. Allen’ s petition, the circuit court stated that oral a rg ument was not nece ssary

in this m atter. Mr . Allen ar g ues on appea l that this prevented him from introduc ing testimonyfrom anothe r cor rec tional office r at the prison who could establish his innocence

. The Tennessee Rules of C ivil Procedur e contain no require ment that a trial c ourt permit ora l arg ument on a motion to dismiss prior to issuing its ruling. See J erkins v. M

cKinney , 533 S.W .2d 275, 279 (Te n n. 1976). “O ral a rg ument is especia lly

unnece ssary

when only

questions of law a

re conce rned.” Id

. (c i t i n g Butterman v. W alston & Co. , 50 F .R. D. 18 9, 19 0 (E .D

. Wis. 19 70 )) ; se e als o Millsaps v. Millsaps , 1989 Tenn. App. L EXI S 317, at *7 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 3, 1989).
Mr. Allen’s attempt to introduce ne w evidenc e amounts to “nothing more than an attack on the intrinsic corr ectne ss of the board’ s decision and an eff ort to ha ve the courts rew eig h the evidenc e prese nted to the boar d.” Le wis v
. Te nn . D e p’ t Co rr. , No. M2002-00608-COA- R3-CV, 2003 Tenn. App. LEXI S 358, at *9 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 20, 2003). “Achalleng e to the intrinsic cor rec tness of-7-

the inferior tribunal’s decision is normally dismiss ed as be ing outside the purview of the re viewing court.” W

ate rs , 2003 Tenn. App. LEX I S 5 1 2 , at * 8–9. The scope of re view that a trial court entertaining a

common law petition for writ of certiorari may eng ag e in is limi ted: Courts may not ( 1) inquire into the intrinsic cor rec tness of the lowe r tr ibu na l’ s d e c isi on , ( 2) re we ig h the e vid e nc e , o r ( 3) su bs titute the ir judgme nt for that of the lower tribunal. Rather, the writ permits the courts to examine the lower tribunal’s decision to determine whether t h e tr i b u n a l e x c e e d e d i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n o r a c t e d i l l e g a l l y, f r au d u l e n t l y, or ar bitrarily

. Le wis , 2003 Tenn. App. L EXI S 358, at *8–9. By simply examining the four corne rs of Mr. A llen’s petition, the circuit court properly applied sec tion 27-9-102 of the Tennessee Code and found that the petition was time barr ed. Ac cording ly , this iss ue raised by Mr. Allen is without merit.
C. D e nia l of

App e lla nt’s Mo tio n f

or De fa ult J udgment
Mr. Allen ar g ues on appe al that, pursuant to Te nnessee Rule of Civil P roce dure 55, the c i r c u i tc o u r t e rr e d b y f

a i l i n g t o g r a n t h i s P e t i t i o n f o r D e f au l t J u d g m e n t

. ( A p p e l l a n t ’ s B r
. a t7 )

. In su pp ort of this arg ume nt, Mr . Alle n poin ts to the fa c t tha t the Com mis sio ne r fa ile d to file a re sp on se to his P etition for Writ of Certiorari by the time set fo rt h in the court’s or der issued on D ece mber 4, 2003.
Rule 55 perm its the tr ia l c ou rt to e nte r j ud g me nt b y

de fa ult a g a ins t a pa rty wh e n th e pa

rty “has f ailed to plead or otherwise defe nd as provided by these rules.” Tenn. R. Civ. P. 55.01 (2003). On the sa me day the c ir c uit c ou rt e nte re d the or de r g ranti ng the Com mis sio ne r an e xten sio n o f t ime in which to respond to Mr. Allen’ s petition, the Commissioner filed a Motion to Dism iss the petition. Te nn e sse e Rul e of

Civ il Pr oc e du re 12 .0 1 p ro vid e s, in r e le va nt p art , a s f oll ow s:
A def endant sha ll serve an answe r within 30 day s afte r t he service of the summons and compl ai nt upon the defe ndant. . . . The se rvice of a motio n p er m itted under this rule a lters these pe riods of time as fo llo ws , u nle ss a

dif fe re nt t ime is f

ixedby or de r o f the c ourt : ( 1) if the court denies the motion or postpones its di sposition unt il the trial o n t h e m e r i t s , t h e r e s p o n s i v e p l e a d i n g s h a l l b e s e r v e d w i t h i n 1 5 d a ys afte r notice of

the court’s action . . . .
Tenn. R. C iv. P. 12.01 (2003). The Commis sioner wa s not require d to file a re sponse to the petition under the rules of procedur e until the court be low addre ssed the Motion to Dismis s. Roberson v. Ro se , No. 01-A01- 9108 -C V- 0 0 2 7 5, 1991 Tenn. App. L EXI S 950, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. De c. 13, 1991). The c ircuit court g rante d the Commi ssioner’s motion on Fe bruary 2, 2004, there by disposing of the c a se a nd makin g a re sp on se to the pe tit ion un ne c e ssa ry
. F urthe rm or e , T e nn e sse e Rul e of Civ il Pr oc e du re 55 .0 4 p ro vid e s:-8- No judg ment by

default shall be ent er ed against the St ate of Tenne ssee or

any office r or agen cythere of unless the c laimant establishes the c laim or rig ht to relief by evidenc e satisfa ctory

to the c ou rt

. Te nn . R. Civ . P. 55 .0 4 ( 20 03 ); Mo ffe tt v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r. , No. M2001-03011-COA- R 3-CV, 20 02 Te nn . A pp . L

EX I S 84 4, a t *3 (T e nn
. Ct. Ap p. De c . 5 , 2 00 2) ; Nor thc ott v . Te nn . D e

p’ t of Cor r. , No. 01-A- 01-9707-CH-00355, 1998 T enn. App. L EXI S 277, at *4–6 (Tenn. Ct. Ap p
. A pr. 29, 1998). Mr. Allen failed to do so.

D. Treatmentof Appellant as a P ro Se Litig ant
I n the final is s u e p re s ented f or our r eview, Mr . Allen ar g ues that the c ircuit court e rre d by holding him to a hig her standa rd as a pro se litigant than a member of

the bar . (Appe llant’s Br . at 8). I n support of this a

rg ument, Mr. Allen cites to the circ uit court’s re fusal to allow him to amend his pleading s rather

than g rant the Commissioner’s Motion to Dismi ss.
“Prisoners ha ve a qua lified rig ht to inst itute and prosec ute civil actions in Tenne ssee’ s courts.” Hessme r , 2 0 0 3 T en n
. Ap p
. LE XIS 3 4 6 , at* 4 (c i t i n g W his na nt v . B

y rd , 525 S.W .2d 152, 153 (Tenn. 1975) ). “Parties who dec ide to repr esent themsel v es ar e entitl ed to fa ir and e qual treatment by

the courts.” Id . When a trial court is confronted w ith a pro se litigant, conduc ting the matter be fore the court can be challeng ing. Ir v in , 7 6 7 S

. W

. 2 d at 6 5 1

. “O n o n e h an d , a t ri al j u d ge must a ccommodate the pro se litigant’s lega l naivete, and, on the ot her hand, he mus t not allow the pro se litigant an unf

air a dvantag e bec ause the litigant re prese nts himself.” Id

. at 651–52. “ Pr o s e litigants who invoke the complex and sometimes technical pr ocedur es of the courts assume a very heavy burden.” Id

. at6 5 2 (c i t i n g Gray v . Stillman W hite Co. , 522 A.2d 737, 741 (R.I . 1987)). The trial court should take this into consideration when pre siding ove r the matter at issue. Id . “ Pr

o s e litigants ar e entitled to the same liberality of construc tion with reg ard to their ple ading s th at [ the Tenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedure ] afford a n y o ther litigant.” Id

. (c i t i n g Es te lle v . G am ble , 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976))

. The trial court should se ek to maintain an equal play ing f ield but should not be expected to a ssist a pro se li t i gan t at the expense of the othe r side. Y oung , 130 S.W .3d at 63 (c i t i n g Ed mu nd so n v . P ra tt , 9 45 S.W. 2d 75 4, 75 5 ( Te nn . Ct . A pp . 1 99 6) ); Hessme r , 2003 Tenn. A p p
. L E X I S 3 46 , at *4 –5 ; Da v is v . E ar ls , N o
. W 2 0 0 0

- 0 0 2 8 0

- C O A

- R 3

- C V , 2 0 0 1 T e n n
. A p p
. LE X IS 386, at *7 (Te nn. Ct. App. May 30, 2001). Our r eview of the re cord indicates that the circ uit court e xten de d Mr

. Al le n e ve ry po ssi ble c ou rt e sy a nd pr op e rl y ha nd le d his Pe tit ion fo r Writ o f C e rt ior ari

.-9- IV. Conclusion
For the fore g oing rea sons, w e af firm the cir cuit court’s de cision to gr ant the Commissi oner’ s Motion to Dism iss. Costs are adjudg ed ag ainst Appellant, John E. All en, for which execution may issue, if nec essary
.

___________________________________ ALAN E. HI GHERS, J UDGE