### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT JAC KSON A ssi gne d on Br ie fs F eb ru ar y 17, 200 6

HER MA N S . P HILLIP S

v. TEN NES SEE D EP AR TME NT OF COR REC TION
An Appeal f

romthe Chancer y Court for Laud erdale County No. 12952 Mar tha B. Brasf ield, Chan cellor

No. W2005-02187-C OA-R3-C V - F iled Jun e 28, 2006

Th is i s a pe tit ion fo r a

c omm on la w w ri t of

c e rt ior ari ari sin g ou t of

pr iso n d isc ipl ina

ry pr oc e e din g s. The prison disciplinary board char g ed the petitioner with mone y laundering, a state off ense. A fter a hea ring , he wa s found g uilty o f t h e charg e and se ntence d to punitive and administrative seg reg ation. He f

iled t h i s p et i t i o n for a

common law writ of certiorari, cha lleng ing the board’ s disciplinary

decision. The writ was g rante d, and the rec ord of the disciplinary proce eding s was sent to the trial court for

revie w. Subsequently , the petitioner filed a motion for summary

judgme nt. The resp o n d e n t f

il e d a n o ti c e th a t it d id n o t in te n d to r e s p o n d to th e mo ti o n , b e c a u s e th e re cord ha d
a lr e a dy be e n s e nt t o the tr ia l c ou rt fo r r e vie w. Th e tr ia l c ou rt dis mis se d th e pe tit ion on the me ri ts wi tho ut f ir st a dd re ssi ng the pe tit ion e r’ s motio n for su mma ry jud g me nt. Th e pe tit ion e r n ow app e a ls, arg uing that the trial court wa s require d to decide his motion for summary judgme nt before addre ssing the merits of hi s petition. W e af firm, conc luding that, unde r the c ircumstance s, the trial
c ou rt wa s u nd e r n o o bli g a tio n to a dd re ss the petitio ne r’ s mo tio n f or su mma ry jud g me nt p ri or

to dismiss ing the action. Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court is Aff irm ed

H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J. , d e li v e r e d th e o p in io n o f th e Co u r t, in w h ic h W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , P.J ., W.S ., and A L AN E. H I G H ERS , J ., joined.

Herman S. Phil lips, W hiteville, TN, appe llant, Pro Se

. Paul G. Summer s , A tt o rn e y G ener al and Reporter, Micha el E. Moore , Solicitor Genera l, and J ennife r Br e n n e r , A s s is ta n t A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l, N a s h v il le , T N , f o r th e ap p e ll e e , T e n n e s s e e D e p ar tm e n t of Correc tion.-2- OP IN ION Petitioner/Appellan t He rm an S. Phill ips (“Petitioner”) is an inmate in the custody of the Respondent/Appellee Tenne ssee De partment of Corr ect io n( “ T D O C”), who at all releva nt times was housed at the West Te nnessee State Penitentiary (“WTSP”) in H enning , Tenne ssee. On January 27, 2004, Petitioner was issued a disc iplinary i n fr action report for mone y laundering, a

violation of Tenne ssee state law. On January 29, 2004, he appear ed b ef o re the WTS P discipli nary board a nd enter ed a ple a of not g uilty . After a hea ring , he wa s convicted of

the money

laundering c harg e. As
a re sult o f the conviction, he w as sentenc ed to punitive and administrative se g reg ation and fine d $5.00.

On Marc h 26, 2004, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the trial court below,
c la imi ng that hi s d isc ipl ina ry he ari ng wa s c on du c te d in a n il le g a l a ndarb itr ary ma nn e r. As the ba sis for his petition, he alleg ed that the board denied a reque st for documents in contrave ntion of TDOC Policy No. 502.01, that he wa s not allowed to cross- examine cert ai n wi t n es s es, and tha t three witnesses we re a llowed to be in the hearing room toge ther while they testified, “ther eby ensuring that
e a c h w itn e ss knew wha t th e ot he r w itn e ss s a id a ndwo uldte sti fy in a c c or da nc e the re to. ” He a lso arg ued that h i s co nviction was base d on insufficient e vidence . On May 16, 2004, TDOC filed a n answe r to the petition. On September

30, 2004, the t rial court enter ed an order g ranting the petition for ce rtiorari and order ed TDO C to file with the court the re cord of the disciplinary

proce eding . Subsequently , TDOC fi le d a c e rt if ie d c op y of the dis c ipl ina

ry re c or d in a c c or da nc e wi th the writ.

On Octobe r 2 9 , 2 0 0 4 , Petitioner filed a motion for summary judgme nt. I n his moti on, Pe tit ion e r a lle g e d th a t th e re we re no g e nu ine iss ue s o f f a c t, a ndhe wa s e nti tle d to a jud g me nt a s a matter of la w, base d on the ce rtified re cord filed by the TDOC. Contemporaneously , Petitioner filed
a me mor a nd um of

la w a ndhis ow n a ff

ida vit . T he me mor a nd um o f l a w f ile d b y Pe tit ion e r m e re ly restate d t h e al l ega t ions in his petit ion for ce rtiorari. Petiti oner’ s aff idavit was a sworn statement attesting to the events a lleg ed in the orig inal petition. On Novemb er 1 8 , 2 0 04, TDOC filed a
re sp on se to P e tit ion e r’ s mo tio n f or su mma ry jud g me nt, no tif

y ing the tr ia l c ou rt that, b e c a us e the writ had bee n issued and the c ertified r ecor d had been filed, Petitioner’s motion was moot and no further response would be filed. On August 2 3 , 2 0 0 5 , b a s e d o n th e c e r ti f ie d c o p y o f th e d is c ip li n ar y

p r o c e e d in g s , th e tr ial
c ou rt e nte re d a n or de r dis mis sin g Pe tit ion e r’ s pe tit ion on the me ri ts. Th e or de r did no t addr ess P et i t i o n er ’s m o t i o n fo r s u m m ar y j u d gm en t

. Fr o m t h i s o rd er , P et i t i o n ern o w a p p ea l s , p ro ce ed i n g pr o se
. The c ommon law writ of certiorari is the proper vehicle throug h which a prisoner may seek revie w of the decisions of a prison disciplinary board. See Rhoden v. TDOC , 984 S.W .2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). G ranting the writ is not a decision on the merits. Rather, the purpose of the writ is to have the r ecor d of the a dminist rative tribuna l filed so that the reviewing court c an-3-

determine whether the petitioner is entitled to relief. Livingston v. S tate of Tenn

. Bd. of Paroles , No. M1999-01138-COA- R3-CV, 2001 WL 747643, at *2 (Te nn. Ct. App. J uly 5, 2001). Onc e the
rec ord is filed with the re viewing court, the r eviewing court e x amines the proc eeding s of the lower tribunal to determine w hether that body exceede d its jurisdi ction or acted illeg ally , fraudulently , or arbitra rily

. Waters v. TDOC , No. M2002-00917-COA- R3-CV, 2003 WL 21713421, at *4 (Te nn. Ct. Ap p. July 24 , 200 3)

. “ [T]he c omm on la w wr it of c e rt ior ari is n ot a va ila ble to t e st the int

ri ns ic
corr ec tness of the law or fa cts of a pa rticular c ase.” Powell v. Parole Eligibil ity Review Bd. , 879 S.W .2 d 8 7 1 , 873 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994); Yokl e y v . St ate , 632 S .W .2d 123, 126 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1981). “I f the a g ency

or boar d has rea ched its de cision in a constitutional or lawful manner , then the decision would not be subjec t to judicial review.” Po we ll , 879 S.W .2d at 873.

I n this appeal, Petitioner ar g ues that the trial c ourt err ed in fa iling to addr ess his motion for summary judgme nt prior to dismiss ing his pe tition. As noted above , the trial court’s scope of revie w is lim ited to a r eview of

the proc eeding s in the administrative tribunal to determine whether the
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e t r i b u n a l a c t e d o u t s i d e 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 a u d u l e n t l y, o r

c ap r i c i o u s l y. “Or dinarily , once the complete r ecor d has been filed, t he reviewing court may proce ed to determine wh e the r the pe tit ion e r i s e nti tle d to re lie f w ith ou t a ny fu rthe r m oti on s a nd , if

the c ou rt c ho os e s, without a hearing. In doing so, the revie wing court may resolve a nymateria l fac tual disputes that may exis t in the rec ord.” Jeff ries v. TDO C , 108 S.W .3d 862, 868 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). After the writ was gr anted a nd the trial court rec eived the r ecor d for r eview, Petitioner f iled a motion for
su mma ry jud g me nt. Hi s mo tio n f

or su mma ry jud g me nt r e state d th e sa me arg ume nts se t ou t in his petition. TDOC filed a notice that, beca use the w ri t h ad b ee n i ssued and the c ertified r ecor d had been f iled, no further

response would b e forthcoming be cause the writ had be en g rante d and the
re c or d h a d b e e n s ub mit te d to the tr ia l c ou rt fo r re vie w. Sub se qu e ntl y , the tr ia l c ou rt dis mis se d h is petition, finding in fa vor of the T DOC on the m erits. Petitioner cites no authority for the pr oposition that the trial court was under an obli g ation to dispose of his motion for summary judgme nt before dismiss i n g t he petition on the merits. The tria l court re viewed the rec ord bef ore it and pr ocee ded to determine w hether

Petitioner was entitled to re lief. Essentially , the trial court’s decision in favor of TDOC on the me rits was an implicit denial of Petitioner’s motion for summary judgme nt. Under these c ircumstance s, we must reje ct Petitioner’s ar g ument.
Petitioner’s second a

rg ument is related to the f irst, that the tr i al co urt should have g rante d summary judgme nt in his favor bec ause TD OC did not file a substantive re sponse to his motion for summary judgme nt as requir ed under Tenne ssee Rule of Civil Procedur e 56. Since the Petitioner’s motion for summary

judgme nt essentially

restate d the alleg ations in t h e o ri gi n al petition and the
certified rec ord of the a dminist rative pr ocee dings had bee n filed, TDOC’s a nswer to the origina l pe tit ion a dd re sse d th e iss ue s r a ise d in the mot ion fo r s umm ary jud g me nt, a ndno fu rthe r r e sp on se was re quired. The ref

ore, the trial court’ s decision shall not be re verse d on this basis.

P eti tioner does not ar g ue on appe al that the trial c ourt’s dismissal of his petition was
err oneous on the merits. Neverthe less, we note that, from our revie w of the re cord, it appe ars that the boar d’s disciplinary

decision wa s based on a mple evidenc e, and that the board did not act ill e g a lly , f

ra ud ule ntl y , o r c apr ic iou sly in m a kin g its de c isi on . To the e xten t th a t Pe tit ion e r s e e ks to-4-

attack the intrinsic corre ctness of the disciplinary board’ s decision, neither the appe llate court nor the tr ia l c ourt is auth or ize d to a dd re ss w he the r the de c isi on of the dis c ipl ina

ry bo ardwa s c or

re c t. See Turner v. Tenn. Bd. of Paroles , 993 S.W .2d 78, 81 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1999) . There fore , we a ffirm the trial court’s decision to dismiss t he petition on the merits.

We affirm the decision of the trial court. Cos ts on appea l are to be taxed to Appellant Herman S. Phil lips, and his surety , for whic h execution may issue, if nec essary
.

___________________________________ HOLL Y M. KI RBY, JUDGE