### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d on Br ie fs Ma y

14, 200 7

AA RON WAL KER

v. TE NN ESSE E D EP AR TME NT OF CORREC TION
Appeal f rom the Chancer y Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 04-777-I C laud ia Bon nym an, Chan cellor

No. M2005- 00209-COA-R 3-CV - F iled Jul y 18, 2007

An inmate of the Depart ment of Corre ction appea ls dismi ssal by the trial cour

t of his Petiti on for Writ of Certiorari of a

Depa rtment of Corre ction Disciplinary Procee ding. The trial c ourt upheld the action of the Depa

rtment of Corre ction. The judg ment of the trial c ourt is affir med.
Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancer y Court Affi rm ed

W I L L I AM B. C A IN , J ., delivere d the opi nion of t he court, in which W I L L I AM C. K O CH , J R ., P.J ., M.S., and P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL , J ., joined.

Aar on Walker, Na shville, Tennessee , Pro Se.

Ro b e rt E

. Co o p e r , A tt o r n e y G e n e r a l an d Re p o rte r , an d Je n n if e r R. B a il e y , A s s is ta nt Attorney Gene ral, for

the appe llee, Te nnessee Depa rtment of Corre ction.

OP IN ION
Appellant is an inmate in the Depa rtment of Corre ction who was c harg ed with the possession of c on tr a ba nd , s a me be inga

c e ll p ho ne and

a DV D p lay e r. On Janu ary 5, 20 04 , he wa s f ound g uil ty of the of fe ns e by the he ari ngof

fi c e r. On Janu ary 16 , App e lla

nt fi le d an a

pp e a l to War de n Ri c ky

B e ll who af firmed the r

uling of the disciplinary board. On Marc h 16, 2004, Appellant filed his Petition for Writ of Certiora

ri in the Chance ry

Court of Davidson County , Tenne ssee. The primar

y c o mp laint made by

Appellant is that he wa s place d in administrative seg reg ation as a punitive mea sure c ontrary to T D O C P o li c y

N o

. 4 0 4

. 1 0 ( IV ) re stricting a dminist rative se g reg ation to “non-punitive seg reg ation for control purposes of inmates who are believed to be a threat to the

secur ity of the institution, t he we lfare of staff , or to other inmates.”

The trial c ourt found the r ecor d to be def icient and, on Oc tober 27, 2004, issued a n order for the De pa rtme nt t o p ro du c e the Ad

min istra tiv e Se g re g a tio n Pl a c e me nt F or m f or re vie w b y

the Court

.-2-

On Dec ember

9, 2004, the trial cour

t, in a commendable in-depth consider ation of the re cord, e ntere d i t s Or d er Di s m i s s i n g t h e P et i t i o nfo r W ri to f C er t i o ra ri h o l d i n g:

Pe tit ion e r, an inma te a t Riv e rb e nd Ma ximumSe c ur ity

I ns tit uti on in Nashville, Tenne ssee, f

iled a petition for wr it of cer tiorari see king r eview of a d i s ci plinary

board de cision that found him guilty of possessing contra

band and

or de re d h im t o a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g reg a tio n. Pe tit ion e r a lle g e s th a t hi s p la c e me nt i n segre gat ion pending investigation of the cha rg es wa s illega l and unauthorized. Petitioner also alleg es that the Te nnessee Depa rt me nt of Correc tion (TDOC) violated its ow n p oli c ie s. Th e Court ha s r e vie we d the re c or d: On De c e mbe r 29 , 2 00 3, Se rg e ant V a le ri e Cecil (Serg eant Cecil), I nstitut ional I nvestig ator, filed an incident r eport stating that

a c e ll p ho ne and

DV D p lay e r w e re fo un d in Pe tit ion e r’ s c e ll, Un it 6 A- 12 1. Th is c e ll also housed Inmate Phillip C otton. Both Petitioner and Inmate Cotton were place d on lock down pendingan investig ation. Petitioner was plac ed in seg reg ation pending the investig ation. The investig atio n es t abli shed that the c ell phone and the DVD play er w ere found in Petitioner’s ce ll area , but that both inmates had use of the cell phone a nd for that rea son, both inmate s wer e formally char g ed with posse ssion of contra band. On J anu ar y 5 , 2004, Petitioner’s disciplinary hear ing w as held at the Riverbend Maxi mum Security

I nstitut ion. An inmate advisor, Mr . J org e Sanjines, re prese nted Petitioner at this hearing . The c ell phone and D VD play er w ere pro d uced a s evidenc e. Petitioner st ated that he used the c ell phone and the DVD play er, but that they did not be long to him. Petitioner further stated that Der rick J ohnson boug ht the phone and pa

y s the bill, and that Mr. J ohnson had been rele ased f rom TDOC custody 7 or 8 months ag o. Petitioner waived his rig ht to call witnesses on his behalf

. Serg eant Cec il testified at the discipli n ar y h earing that both devices w ere found in Petitioner’s ce ll area and that the number s called on the cell phone a re Pe tit ion e r’ s p ho ne numbe rs . T he dis c ipl ina ry he ari ng of

fi c e r fo un d Pe tit ion e r guil ty of contra band b ec au s e these device s were found in his cell and r ecommende d

a d m i n i s t r a t i v e s e gr e g a tio n f

or Pe tit ion e r. Pe tit ion e r f

ile d a dis c ipl ina

ry re po rt a pp e a l, but Warden B ell did not find any pro ce d u ral violations in Petiti oner’ s disciplinary hear ing a nd aff irmed the punishment as a ppropriate

. Serg eant Cec il also wrote a r eport dated J anuar y 20, 2004. The re port
summa r iz e d th e r e a s o n a

b le s u s p ic io n c e ll s e ar c h th a t to o k p la c e o n D e c e mb e r 20, 20 03 . Se rg e ant C e c il s ta te d tha t Off ic e r C ars on

a dmi tte d b ri ng ingthe c e ll p ho ne int o the ins tit uti on a l [sic ] an d g ivi ngthe c e ll p ho ne to P etiti on e r. Of fi c e r C ars on

a lso admitted to bring ing in c iga rs, movies, and music to g ive to inmates. Off icer Carson

a lso state d th a t he did

no t kn owwh o br ou g ht in the DV D p lay e r, bu t he kn e w that it be lon g e d to Pe tit ion e r b e c a us e Of fi c e r C ars on

ha d b ro ug ht m ov ie s in

fo r h im.-3- I n an orde r dated October 27, 2004, the Court direc ted Respondent to file the administrative seg reg ation place ment form bec ause the Court could not discern f rom the reco rd whe ther the he aringoffice r excee ded his authority by imposing

a dmi ni st rat ive s e g re g a tio n. Th e Court ne e de d to re vie w the fo rm so tha t it c ou ld deter mine whether

the Warden imposed the administrative seg reg ation and if so,

w h y. Prison discipli nary proce eding s are proper ly

revie wable thr oug h the common law writ of cer

tiorari. Rhoden v. State Depa rtment of Corre ction, 984 S.W .2d 955 (T e nn .Ct .App .1 99 8) . T he sc op e of re vie w a va ila ble thr ou g h th is w ri t is e xtre me ly

narr ow. Arnold v. Te nnessee Bd. of Paroles, 956 S.W.2d 478, 480 (Tenn.1997). The

wr it m ay be us e d o nly

to determ in e wh e the r, in a pa rt ic ula r c a se , th e bo ard

in question exceede d its jurisdi ction or ac te d il le g a lly , fra

udulently , or ar

bitrarily ; it may not be used to re view the c orre ctness of the board’ s decision. I d.
Th e Court do e s n ot f ind the he a r i n g o ff ic e r’ s d e c isi on

to b e ill e g a l, f

ra ud ule nt, or arb i t rary . The re cord substantiate s Petiti oner’ s conviction of possession of contra band. Nothing in the rec ord lea ds th e Court to conclude that Petitioner’s disciplinary

hear ing w as not fair

or not impartial. The a dminist rative se g reg ation place ment form verifie s that the Warden imposed se g reg ation upon rec ommendation of the B oard, ba sed on a thre at to the sec urity of the institution.
Fur ther, the Court finds a

“re liable deter

mination of g uilt.” See W i l l is v. Tenne ssee Dept’ of Corr., 113 S.W .3d 706, 714 (Tenn.2003) (I f t h e T ennessee Depa rtment of Corre ction wer e (sic) to violate its own policies to suc h a deg ree that it a dminist ere d punishment w ithout a r eliable de termination of guilt, such a violation would be without leg al authority an d an abuse of discretion.”) The Court does not f i n d a v i o l a t i o no f

a l i b e rt y i n t e r e s tp r o t e c t e d

b y t h e d u e p r o c e s s c l a

u s e v i o l a t i o n

. In Wil lis, the Tennessee Supreme Court, re ly i n g o n Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1 99 5) , h e ld t

hat pu nit ive and a dmi nis tr a tiv e se g re g a tio n d oe s n ot d e pr ive an in ma te of a li b e rty in te r e s t. Wi ll is , 1 1 3 S. W. 3 d a t 7 1 1

. H o w e v e r , th e im p o s it io n o f a monetary fine to be pa id from a pr ison trust fund acc ount would constitute a deprivation of a prope rty in tere st. I n the instant case , Petitioner was not fined

m o n e t ar i l y. For the above state re asons, Petitioner’s petition is dism issed.
Pe tit ion e r i s taxed

wi th t he c os ts.
I T I S SO ORDERED.

The F inal Orde r of the trial cour t is made afte r a r eview of the Administrative Seg reg ation Placement F orm appe aringin the rec ord fr om which it is indeed clea r t hat the wa

rden imposed seg reg ation upon rec ommendation of t he Board based on a threat to the s ecur ity of the Institut ion. Th e tr ia l c ourt

ob se rv e d:-4-

TDOC policies state that a dmini s t ra t i ve segreg ation must be based on sa fety and

secur ity , not as punishment. The T DO C policy define s administrative seg reg ation as “The non-punitive seg reg ation of inmates, for control purpose s, who are believed to be a thre at to t h e s ec u ri ty of the institution, t he we lfare of staff , or to other inmates.” TDO C 404.10(I V)(A ).

Since there is no evidence in the rec ord to the contra ry and the Administrative Seg reg ation Placement F orm is undisputed, the evidence does not preponder ate a g ainst the judg ment of the trial

c ourt

.
Th e a c tio n o f t

he tr ia l c ourt

is i n a ll re sp e c ts a ff

ir me d, and c os ts of the c a

us e are a sse sse d to Appellant, Aa

ron Walker.

___________________________________ WI L L I AM B. CAI

N, J UDGE