R U L E 1 0

. M E M OR A N D U M OP I N I ON 1
T his C o urt, wit h the c o nc urre nc e o f all jud ge s p arti cip ati ng i n the c ase , m ay aff i rm , rev erse
o r mo d i f y t he act i o ns o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n w hen a fo rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no pre ceden t i al va l ue. W hen a c as e i s decid ed b y memoran dum o pi ni on i t s hal l be des i gn at ed “M E M O R A N D U M O P IN IO N ,” s h a ll no t be pub l i shed, and s hal l not b e ci t ed or rel i ed on f o r any
r eas on i n a ny un r el at ed cas e. 

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

AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d O n B ri ef

Ma y 25, 200 4

DA VID SHA RPv. S TAT E OF TEN NES SEE

Direc t Appeal from the Claim s Com m ission of the State of Tenn essee No. 20-300-947 N ancy C. Miller- Herr on, Com m ission er

No. W2004-00044-C OA-R3-C V - June 16, 2004

An inmate filed a

claim with the Claims Com mission conte nding ne g lige nce on the part of the Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ection in miscalculating his sentenc e cr edits. The Commissi on dis mis se d f

or la c k o f j urisd ic tio n, the inm a te app e a le d, a ndwe a ff ir m.

Tenn. R. App . P

3 Appeal as of

Right; Judgme nt of th e Claim s Com m ission Aff irm ed

D AVI D R. F ARMER , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e c o u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J ., joined.

David H. Shar

p, Pr o s e

. Paul G. Summers, Attorney Gene ral a nd Reporter , Michae l E. Moore Solicitor Gene ral a nd J ohn H. Sinclair, J r., Assistant Attorney Gene ral, for

the State of Te nnessee

.
M EM OR AN DU M OP IN ION 1

David Sharp, an inmate in custody of t he Tennessee Depa rtment of Corre ction (TDOC), f iled
a c la im w iththe Di vis ionof Cla ims Ad min ist

ratio n. Th e cla im w a s tr a ns fe rr e d to the Cla ims Commi ssion on April 22, 2003. The basis of t he claim was that the TDOC neg lige ntly , willfullyand maliciously miscalculate d Mr. Sharp’s sentenc e cre dits. Claimant soug ht damag es in th e a m o u nt of $500,000 for

loss of wag es and loss of f ree dom.-2-

Th e State fi le d a

mot ionto d ism iss pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 12 .0 2 o f the Te nn e sse e Rul e s o f C ivi l Procedur e on the ba sis that the Claims C ommissi on lacke d jurisdiction to hear the claim and the motion was g rante d. Mr. Sharp a ppeals, c ontending that the g ranting of the motion to di smiss was in error

.
Gene rally , an appe al from the T ennesse e C laims Comm ission is revie wed de novo with a presumpti o n o f co rr ec tness in its findings of fa ct. Se e Do bs on v . S tate , 23 S.W .3d 324, 328-29 (T e nn

. Ct. Ap p. 19 99 ). Ho we ve r, in re vie wi ng a dis mis sa l pu rs ua nt t o Ru le 12 .0 2, we a ssu me a ll the Pla int if

f’ s a lle g a tio ns to b e true a ndre vie w the low e r c ou rt ’s c on c lus ion s de novo with no presumpt i o n of cor

rec tness. See King v. D anek M edical, Inc

. , 3 7 S. W.3 d 4 29 , 4 53 -5 4 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. 2000). Whether subje ct matter jurisdiction exists is a question of law. The ref ore, our standard of re vie w i s de novo without a p re s umption of corre ctness. Se e Nor thl an d I ns . Co . v . S tate , 33 S.W .3d 727, 729 (Tenn. 2000)

. Mr. Sharp a sserts on appe al that “[t] his i s a n egl i gence ac tion under T.C.A. § 9-8- 307(a) (1)( E).”

I n addre ssing the doc trin eo f s overe ign immunity , our supre me court, speaking throug h Chief Justi c e Dr ow ota , r e c e ntl y sta te d a s f oll ow s:

Article I , section 17 of the T ennesse e Constituti on provides that “[s]ui ts may be broug ht ag ainst the State in such manner and in suc h courts as the L eg islature may by law dire ct.” This constitutional provision ref lects sovereig n immunit y , the notion that a so ve re ig n govern menta l e nti ty c a nn ot b e su e d inits ow n c ou rt s w ith ou t it s consent. See State v. Cook , 171 Tenn. 605, 609, 106 S.W.2d 858, 860 (1937); Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-13- 102 (“N o court in the s tate shall have any power , jurisdiction, or
auth ority to e nte rt a in a ny su it a g a ins t the state

. . . wi th a vie w to re a c h the state , it s tr e a su ry , f un ds , o r p ro pe rty

. . .” ). As a g e ne ra l inte rp re tiv e ma tte r this Cou rt ha s h e ld that th e princ ipl e of

so ve re ig n im mun ity

re qu ir e s th a t le g isl a tio n auth orizin g su its aga i n s t t h e state must provide f or the state’ s consent in “plain, c lear , and

u nmistakable” te rms. Cook , 1 71 Te nn . at 61 1, 10 6 S. W.2 d at 86 1; se e als o B e are Company v. O lsen , 71 1 S.W. 2d 60 3, 60 5 (T e nn

. 19 86 ). We mus t th e re fo re c are fu lly analy ze the statute g ranting jurisdiction to the Tenne ssee Claims Commi ssion, which this Court has previously held cr eate s a “swe eping p ro cedure for filing mone tary claims ag ainst the state.” He mb re e v . S tate , 925 S.W .2d 513, 516 (Tenn. 1996)

.
Northland Ins. C o. , 33 S.W .3d at 729.

Tenne ssee Code A nnotated § 9-8-307 states that the Commi ssion ha s “exclusive jurisdiction to de te rm ine a ll mon e tary c la ims a g a ins t the state ba se d on the a c ts or om is si on s o f “s ta te employ ees” . . . falling within one (1) or more of the following cate g ories [.] ” Te nn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307( a)( 1). Mr. Sharp r elies upon section 9-8-307(a )(1) (E)( Neg lige nt car e, custody , and contr ol of per sons). It is provide d in se ction 9-8-307( a)( 3) that “[i] t is the intent of the g ener al assembly that-3-

the j urisdiction of t he claims commission be li bera lly construed to implement the r emedial pur poses of thi s le g isl a tio n. ” We are inc lin e d to a g re e wi th the Cla ims Com mis sio n th a t Mr . Sh arp ’s c la im of neg lige nt misca lculation of his se ntence cre dits doe s not f all within the jurisdictional statute. Mr. Sharp has c ited no authority to convince us othe rwise.
Mr. Sharp ne x t arg ues that “A ppellee h ad a dutyof ca re to a ppellant. This duty

was established by the Tennessee L eg islature as a matter of rig ht throug h T.C.A. 4-1-103 Oath of Off ice of Off icer s’ and e mploy ees w hich mandate d that appel l ee fol lowed Appe llee’s a dminist rative policies including 505.01, Sentence Credits.” Tennessee Code Annotated § 9- 8-307(a )(1) (N) states that the Claims Com mission has jurisdi ction to decide mone tary claims ag ainst the state for the
[n] eg lige nt deprivati o n of statutory rig hts created under

Tenne ssee law , except for actions arising out of c laims over which the civil se rv ic ec ommissi on has jurisdiction. Th e c la ima nt mus t pr ov e un de r thi s su bd ivi sio n that the g e ne ra l a sse mbl y e xpre ssl y confe rre d a private rig ht of ac tion in favor of the claimant ag ains t the state for the state’s violation of the pa rticular statute’s provisions[.]

There fore , the above statute confe rrin g j u ri s diction on the Claims C ommissi on specifie s that Mr. Sharp must show that this st atute alleg edly violated by

the state ex

pre ssl y g rants ind ivi du a ls a

private rig ht of action to e nforc e those rig hts. For every statutory rig ht alleg edly violated by

the state, Mr. Sha rp mus t r e fe re nc e e xplic it s ta tut ory la ng ua g e tha

t w ou ld g rant h im the private ri g ht o f a c tio n to enfo rce th e statute . M r. Sha rp ’s c la im s ta te s, in p e rt ine nt p art , th a t th e TD OC ne g lig e ntl y miscalculate d his sentence cre dits “in vi olation of T.C .A. §§ 41-332 and 41-334. I n J uly 1, 1981, TCA §§ 41-332 and 41- 334 was [sic] abrog ated a nd a new se ntencing statute ena cted, T.C.A. §§ 41- 21-229 and 41- 21-230 which se ts o u t how prisoners suc h as my self ar e to obtain g ood conduct sentenc e cr edits . . . .” Mr. Sharp ha s not ci t ed express lang uag e in the statutes re lied upon that g rante d a private rig ht of action in his favor. We have further revie wed Te nn. Code Ann. § 41-21- 236. Sentence r eduction cre dits

. We likew ise failed to f ind such express lang uag e in that statute. Acc ording ly , we hold that the Tenne ssee Claims Commi ssion lacked the subje ct matter jurisdiction to h e ar M r. Sha

rp ’s c la im a ndthat di smi ssa l un de r R ule 12 .0 2 o f the Ten nes see Ru le s o f C ivi l Procedur e wa s proper

in this case.

An inmate who contends that he has not be en g iven prope r sentenc e re duction cre dits is not without recour se but may avail himself of the Administrative Procedur es Act, Te nn. Code Ann. § 4-5-101, e t seq. Se e J

am e s A. Va ug hn v. Stat e , No. 01 CO1-9308-CR-00258 (Te nn. Crim. App., Na sh vil le , F e b. 24 , 1 99 4) ; se e als o Rus se ll Kirb y v . S tate , N o. 03 CO 1- 93 09 -C R- 00 30 3 ( Te nn . Crim. App., Knoxvil le, Aug . 22, 1994).-4-

Th e de c isi on of

the Cla ims Com mis sio n is a ff ir me d. Th e c os ts o f this app e a l are ta xedto t h e A p p e l l a n t , D a v i d S h arp , 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.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, J UDGE