### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A SS IG N E D O N BR IE FS F E BR U A RY 15, 200 8 CORY O. JO HNSO N v. ROSS BATES , WARDEN, WTS P DISCI PLINARY BOARD

Direc t Appeal from the Circ uit Court forLaud erdale County

No. 6178 Joseph H. Walk er, III, Judge

No. W2007-02293-C OA-R3-C V - Filed May 22, 2008

This appea l involves a petition f or writ of cer

tiorari filed by

an inmate. F ollowing the inve stigation of a homic i d e at t h e prison, dis ciplinary char g es we re f

iled ag ainst the petitioner. The prison disciplinary

board he ld a hea

ring and found the petitioner g uilty of the c harg es. The pe titioner was indicted by

a g rand jury

and cha rg ed with sec ond deg ree murder, but the c ase w as later dismiss ed via nolle prosequi. The petitioner then filed his pe tition for w rit of cer tiorari challeng ing the prison disciplinary board’ s actions at the hear ing, and the tria l court dismissed it as untim ely . The pe titioner
a pp e a ls. We a ff

ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P. 3; Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the C ircuit Court A ffirm ed

A LA N E. H I G H ERS , P.J., W.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which D AVI D R. F ARMER , J., and H OL LY M. K I RBY , J., joined. Cory O. Johnson, Petros, TN, pr o s e
No brief filed by Appe llee

OP IN IONT h e se fa c ts a re tak e n fro m Jo h n so n ’s p e tit io n fo r w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. 1

-2-

I. F A C TS & P R OC EDU R A L H I S T ORY
C o ry J ohnson (“Johnson” or “Petitioner”) is an inmate in the custody of the Te nnessee D e p artm e n t o f

Co r r e c ti o n

. A homic id e w a s c o mm itte d a t t h e N o rthw e s t C o r

r e c ti o n a l C o mp le x, wh e re John so n w a s b e inghe ld, on Janu ary 31 , 2 00 4. On F e br

ua ry 1, 20 04 , J oh ns on wa s p la c e d in seg reg ation pending an investig ation of his i n v olvement in the homicide. J ohnson was later 1 transfe rre d to the West Tennessee State Prison. On Febr uary 9, 200 4 , J o h nson rec eived a disciplinary

repor t for “violation of state l aw

– cr i minal homicide.” At a disc iplinary hear ing on Fe bruar y 17, 2004, the West Tennessee State Prison Disciplinary Boa rd (“ Boa rd”) found Johns on g uilty of the c harg es ag ainst h i m

. Hi s first- and se cond-le vel appe als wer e denie d by the prison
war den and the Commi ssioner of the D epar tment of Correc tion, respec tively

. On Marc h 13, 2006, J ohnson was indicted by the L ake County g rand jury for se cond deg ree mur de r ba se d on the inc ide nt. Th e L a ke County Cir c uit Court e nte re d anor de r d ism iss ingthe c a se via no lle pr os e qu i on J uly 24 , 200 7, up on the a ssi sta

nt d ist ri c t a tto rn e y ’s ann ounc e me nt t hat th e State did not desire to prosec ute the ac tion. On September

17, 2007, J ohnson filed a petition f or writ of cer

tiorari in the Circuit Court of L auder dale County , seekinga re view o f t h e ac t i ons taken by the B oard at the Fe bruar y 17, 2004 h e ar i n g

. J o h n s o n a l l e g e d t h a t t h e B o ar d “ a c t e d i l l e g a l l y an d ar b i t r ar i l y an d

e x c e e d e d i t s a u t h o r i t y” by vio la tin g se ve ra l of the Te nn e sse e De pa rtme nt o f C or

re c tio n U nif

or m D isc ipl ina

ry Pr oc e dure s. Specifica lly , J ohnson claimed that the Board erre d in allowing him to be se g reg ated f or more tha

n seven da y s pending the investig ation; failing to allow hi s inmate advisor to conduct a n investigation; moving him to a differe nt prison, thereby preve nting him from obtaining rele vant evidenc e; fa iling to assess the cr edibility

of the c onfidential informa nts; and wrong fully

convicting him of

a ser ious offe nse. Johns on soug ht an orde r setting aside the B oard’ s decisi o n , o rdering his re moval from maxi mum security

detention, re storing his “ g ood and honor c redits” of 180 day s, cre diting him for 30 day s punitive seg reg ation, and re funding his $5.00 fine. On September

25, 2007, the trial cour

t entere d an orde r dismissing t he petiti on as time-bar red pursuant to Tenne ssee Code A nnotated section 27-9-102. The order further stated that the pe tition was d en i ed b eca

use it failed to state a

claim for r elief, a s the intrinsic corr ectne ss of the B oard’ s decision wa s not subject to judicial revie w. J ohnson timely filed a notice of appea l on October 3, 2007.

II. I SSU ES P R ESENTED Petitioner prese nts the following issues f or re view:-3-

1. Whether the L auder dale County Circuit Court erre d in dismi ssing the petition for wr it of
cer tiorari as time-ba

rre d. 2. Whether the L auder dale County Circuit Court erre d in dismi ssing the pe tition for writ of
c e rt ior ari fo r f

a ilure to s ta te a

c la im.

F or the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de c isi on

of the c ir c uit

c ourt

.
III
. S TA N D A R D O F R EVIEW
A m oti on to d ism iss fo r f

a ilure to s ta te a

c la im o nly

te sts the su ff

ic ie nc y of the c omp la int , seekingto determine w hether the pleading s st at e a claim upon which relief can be g rante d. Trau-Med of

Am erica, Inc. v. Allstat

e Ins. Co. , 7 1 S. W.3 d 6 91 , 6 96 (T e nn . 2 00 2) ; Smith v . Fi rst Union N at. Bank of Te nn. , 958 S.W .2d 113, 114-15 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997). “ We reviewthe trial
c ourt ’s le g a l con clusio ns de no vo wi tho ut g ivi ngany pr e su mpt ion

of c or re c tne ss t o th os e conclusions.” Trau-Med , 7 1 S. W. 3d a t 6 9 6

- 9 7 ( ci t i n g W hite v. Re vco D isc. Drug Ctrs., Inc. , 33 S.W .3d 713, 718 (Tenn. 2000) ).

IV. D I S CUS S I ON
A cha lleng e to a pr ison disciplinary board d ec i sion is properly broug ht by

filing a petition for c ommon law writ of ce rtiorar i. Bonn e r v . Tenn. D e

p’ t of Cor r. , 8 4 S. W.3 d 5 76 , 5 82 (T e nn . Ct

. Ap p. 20 01 ); Rhod

e n v . St ate De p’ t of Cor r. , 984 S.W .2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). Tenne ssee Code A nnotated sec tion 27-9-102 re quires that the pe tition be filed within six ty day s of the challeng ed action. The sixt y -day statute of limitations i s mandatory and jurisdictional. Jackson
v . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , 240 S.W .3d 241, 247 (Tenn. Ct

. Ap p

. 2 0 0 6 ). F ailure to file the petition within the statutory

time limi t results in the Board’ s decision becoming final, and once t he dec ision is f in a l, th e c o u rt is d e p r iv e d o f s u b je c t matt e r jurisdiction. Go re v . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , 132 S.W. 3d 36 9, 37 9 ( Te nn . Ct . App . 2 00 3) ; Thandi we v. Traughber , 909 S.W. 2d 80 2, 80 4 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 1994). I f th e p e ti ti o nf o r c e rti o r ar i s h o w s o nit s f

a c e th a t i t w a s f

il e d b e y o n d th e s ixt y - d ay statute of li mitations, this defe ct i s fata l to subject m atter jurisdiction and dis missal is proper. Go re , 132 S.W .3d at 374.

I n this c ase, J ohnson filed the petition f or writ of cer

tiorari on September 17, 2007, seeking revie w of his Fe brua ry 1 7 , 2 004 disciplinary hear ing be fore the B oard. We note that J ohnson’s petition for writ of cer

tiorari stated that he appea led the Fe bruar y 17, 2004 decision to the wa rden and to the Commi ssioner of the Depa rtment of Corre ctions, and the a ppeals we re de nied. The dates of these de nials are not included in the re cord, but Johnson does not claim that he filed his petiti on for writ of certiorar i within six ty day s of t hose dec isions. I nstead, he argues that he w as not requir ed to file his petition unti l the criminal ca se aga i n s t h i m was dismissed beca use the c riminal proce eding s were “an ong oing a dminist rative r emedy .”

We find no merit in the argument that the criminal case was sim ply an extension of the prison disciplinary hear ing. “ Prison discipli nary proce eding s are not part of a criminal prose cution.”-4-

Wil lia ms v. Te nn. D e

p’ t of Cor r. , N o

. M 2000-02905-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 1974116, at *3 (Te nn. C t

. Ap p

. Au g. 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 ) ( qu o t i n g W olf f v . M c Do nn e ll , 418 U.S. 539, 556, 94 S. C t. 2963, 2975, 43 L . Ed.2d 93 5 , 9 5 1 (1974)) . “I t has long been unde rstood that proce eding s conducte d by a prison disciplinary

board a re a dminist rative in nature. Th ey ar e n o t criminal proc eeding s as the law understands that term.” Ke e n v . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , N o

. M 2 0 0 7

- 0 0 6 3 2

- CO A

- R3

- CV , 2 0 0 8 WL 5 3 9 0 5 9 , at * 3 (T en n

. C t

. Ap p

. Fe b

. 2 5 , 2 0 0 8 ) ( ci t i n g Ra yv . S tat e , 5 77 S.W. 2d

68 1, 68 2 ( Te nn . Cr im. Ap p. 19 79 ); Sta te e

xre l Tu rn e r v . G or e , 175 S.W .2 d 3 1 7 , 3 1 8 (T en n. 1943)). The functions of prison disciplinary boards are administrative and not judicial in nature

. Buford v. Te nn. Dep’t of Cor r. , No. M1998-00157-COA- R3-CV, 1999 WL 1015672, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. App. Nov. 10, 1999). Priso n disciplinary

proce eding s are not in conflict with proce eding s in criminal courts, which c an result in a new

conviction and a

new sentence for the de fenda nt, even whe n the same c onduct is the subject of both pr ocee dings. Dy e r v . T e nn. D e p’ t of Cor r. , No. M2001-01446-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 2023142, at *3 (Te nn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2002).

J ohnson also claims that filing a timely petition f

or writ of ce rtiorar i “may

have inc riminated the Ap pe lla

nt, ” c iti nghis “ 5th

Am e ndme nt R ig ht o f t

he Un ite d St a te s Co ns tit

uti on no t to inc ri min a te him se lf .” Johnso n do es not s ug g e st h owhis fi lin g of the pe tit ion

mig ht h a ve vio la te d h is r ig ht t o asser t his Fifth Amendment privileg e. The Fifth Ame ndment to the United States C o n s t i t u t i on g ua ra nte e s th a t th os e a c c us e d o f c ri me s ma y no t be c omp e lled to testif y or g ive e vid e nc e a g a ins t themselves. Ric hards on v . T e nn. B d. of

De ntis try , 9 13 S.W. 2d

44 6, 46 1 ( Te nn . 1 99 5) . T he F if th Amendment privileg e protects any disclosures which a witness mig ht rea sonably believe w ould be
u s e d in a c r im in a l p r o s e c u ti o n , o r w h ic h c o u ld le a d to o th e r e v id e n c e th a t mi g h t b e s o used. I d. (c i t i n g Murphy v . W

aterfront Comm’n , 378 U.S. 52, 94, 84 S. C t. 1594, 1 6 1 1 , 12 L . Ed.2d 678 (1 96 4) ; State ex re l. Shriver v. Lee ch , 612 S.W .2d 454, 459 (Tenn. 1981) , cert. de nied , 454 U.S. 836, 102 S. Ct . 139, 70 L

. Ed.2d 116 (1981)) . “The privileg e ca n be cla imed in any

proce eding , civil or criminal, administrative or judicia l, investigatory or adjudicatory .” Id. at 4 6 1 -6 2 (q u o t i n g Murphy , 378 U

. S. a t 9 4 , 8 4 S. Ct

. a t 1 6 1 1 )

. H o w e v e r , w e ar e aw ar e o f n o a u th o r it y f o r Jo h n s o n ’ s p o s it ion that he could r ely

upon the Fif

th Amendment t o toll the statute of limit ations for filing his petition fo r w ri t of

c e rt ior ari . In s e ve ra l c a se s, de fe nd ants ha ve argue d that the pr oc e e din g s to re vo ke the ir probation should be continued or postponed until the criminal case s based on the sa me conduc t were resolved, in or der to pre serve thei r Fifth Amendment rig hts. See State v. Patterson , No. M2001- 01 99 1- CCA -R 3- CD , 2 00 2 WL 31 15 45 97 , at *3 (T e nn . Crim . App . Sep t. 23, 20 02 ); State v. Taylor , No. W1999-01803-CCA-R3-CD, 2000 WL 1024614, at *2 (Tenn. Crim. App. July 24, 2000); Sta te v. Carden , 653 S.W .2d 753, 755 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1983) . The de fenda nts claimed that by

allowing the proc eeding s to coincide, they wer e ef fec t i v el y preve nted from testify ing in the r evocation proce eding s. Howeve r, in e ach case , the appellate court held that the denial of a continuance did not violate the def

endant’ s Fifth Amendme nt rig hts. The de fenda nts could assert their

Fifth Ame ndment ri g ht n ot t o te sti fy

in t he re vo c a tio n p ro c e e din g s, bu t the y c ou ld not us e the ri g ht “a s a shie ld t o avo id cooper ating with the court in its fact finding mission,” Taylor , 2000 WL 1024614, at *2, and they could not preve nt the case from proc eedingbased on the State’s other e vidence , Patterson , 2 0 0 2 WL 3 1 154597, at *3. We find these c ases somew hat ana logous to the situation in the ca se at ba r, and their re asoning is persuasive. We c onclude that J ohnson could not r ely on the Fif th Amendment as-5-

a valid re ason for

failing to file a pe tition for writ of ce rtiorar i simpl y beca use of the possibil ity

that
a cr iminal case w ould be filed.

I n s um, the tr ia l c ourt

pr op e rl y dis mis se d Joh ns on ’s pe tit ion fo r w ri t of c e rt ior ari be c a us e it was time-ba

rre d. We need not addr ess whethe r the pe tition s tated a c laim for re lief.

V. C ONCL US I ON

F or the a fo re me nti on e d r e a so ns , w e a ff ir m th e de c isi on of th e cir c uit c ourt . Co sts of

thi s a p p e a l ar e t a x e d

t o P e t i t i o n e r , C o r

y O

. J o h n s o n , f

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

___________________________________ AL AN E. HI GH ERS , P. J. , W .S.