# FILED February 27, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk E. L. REID, ) ) Davidson Chancery Plaintiff/Appellant, ) No. 96-26-II ) VS. ) ) GOVERNOR DON SUNDQUIST, et. al., ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9709-CH-00494 Defendants/Appellee

s. ) IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE APPEAL FROM

THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE HONORABLE CAROL L. Mc COY, CHANCELLOR
E. L. Reid, #203343 N.W.C.C. Route 1, Box 660 Tiptonville, TN 38079 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIF F/APPELLANT Sohnia W. Hong, #17415 Assistant Attorney General 426 Fifth Avenue

North Nashville, TN 37243-0488 ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

MODIFIED, AFFIRMED AND REMANDED.

HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDL E SECTION

CONCUR: BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE WALTER W. BUSSART, JUDGE-2-

E. L. REID, ) ) Davidson Chancery Plaintiff/Appellant, ) No. 96-26-II ) VS. ) ) GOVERNOR DON SUNDQUIST, et. al., ) Appeal No. ) 01A01-9709-CH-00494 Defendants/Appellee

s. ) 

## O P I N I O N The petitioner, E. L. Reid, has appealed from a judgment of the Trial Court en tered on August 13, 1996, dismissing his petition for review of the results of two disciplinary hearings before an administrative board of the State Department of Correction. Appellant submits thirteen “issues” which are essentially inquiries regarding disc iplinary rules of the Department of Correction.
In re ality, the sol e issue which this a ppeal presents is

whether the Tria

l Court erred in dismissing appellant’s petition for review. Al though s ome of the defend ants were dismisse

d because they were not proper parties, the dispositive issue as to all defendants is whether the petition, filed on January 4, 1996, was timely. Its praye r is for relief from an order of a disciplinary board, but the date of said order and

the identificatio

n of the board is no

t stated in the peti

tion. Attached t o the petition is a copy of a letter from the warden of the prison wherepetitioner is confined, dated June 16, 1995, and deny

ing petitioner’ s appeal in respe ct to discipline rece

ived. This will

be taken as the final order of theadministrative authority. The petition for review was filed in the Trial Court on January 4, 1996, over six months after the administrative order. Th e defendant, Governor Don Sundquist, Donal Campbell, Warden Morgan m oved t o dismiss for failure to state a c laim for which relief can be granted. The memorandum of law mentioned in the motion is not included in this record.-3- The Trial Court sustained the defendant’s motion to dismiss anddismissed the petitio n with prejudice. The order of theTrial Court waived costs in that court without stating the legal authority for doing so. Warden Robert

Conley adopted the

motion to dismiss of other defendants and was dismissed on November 16, 1996. TCA§ 27-9-102 provides that judicial review of administrations must be sought within 60 days after final administrative a ction. Petitioner waited six months to file his petition. It was properly dismissed. Petitioner assert

s that his constitutio

nal rights to due process were violated. However, the UnitedStates Supreme Court has held that procedural regulations promul gat ed for the conduct of disciplinary

proceedings do

not endow prisoner

s with a liberty

inte rest which entitles them to the protections of

due process in those proceedings. Sandin v. Conner , 515 US 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).
In Sandin , Mr. Conner complained that he was found guilty of misbehavior and sentenced to thirty day

s of disciplinary

segregation

without the opportu

nity to present witnesses in his own defense. The Court

found that the punishment imposed was within the normal incidents of prison life, and that it is onl y where the punishment “imposes a typical a nd significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” that such a liberty interest might arise.
In the present

case, Mr. Reid was found gu ilty of two ch

arges of posse

ssion of a deadly weapon, and ten days of punitive segregation was imposed for e ach disciplinary infraction, for a total of twenty day

s. Mr. Reid claimed

that he was innoce

nt of the charg

es, and that he wa

s the victim of a conspirac y by correctional o fficials t o prevent hi m from purs uing a remedy for the abuse that he has been subjected to in prison. The question of the alleged a buse is not before this court, but-4-

insofar as Mr. Reid’s appeal is based upon lack of due process in disciplinary proceedings, it is clear that the trial cour

t did not err in dismis sing that claim. The judgment of t

he Trial Court is mod

ified to adjudge

all costs against thepetitioner. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against the appellant. The cause is remanded to the

Trial Court for en

try and enf

orcement of the m

odified judgment

. 

### MODIFIED, AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

___________________________________ HENRY F. TODD PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDL E SECTION CONCUR:

_____________________________ BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE

_____________________________ WALTER W. BUSSART, JUDGE