IN THE COURT OF AP PEALS OF

TENNESSEE, WESTE RN SECTION AT JACKS ON

_______________________________________________________ ) E. L. (ELDRED) REID, ) Lake County Circuit Court ) No. 96-7383 Plaintiff

/Appella nt. ) ) VS. ) C. A. NO. 02A01-9611-CV-00269 ) JASON PETTY, ) ) Defendant/Appellee. ) )

______________________________________________________________________________ From the Circuit Court of Lake County at Tiptonville. Honorable Joe G. Riley, Jr., Judge E. L. (Eldred) Reid , Pro Se Northwest Correctional Center, Tiptonville, Tennessee Charles W. Burson, Attorney General & Reporter, Nashville, Tennessee Jeff Hill, Assistant Attorney General , Nashville, Tennessee Attorneys for D efendant/Appellee.
OPINI ON FIL

ED: AFFI RMED AND

REMANDED FARMER, J. CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. : (Concur s) LILLARD, J. : (Concur s)1 9-8-307. Jurisdiction -- Claims -- Waiver of actions -- Standard for tort liability --

Damages -- Imm

unities -- Definitions -- Transfer of claims. -- (a)(1) The commission or each commissioner sitting

individua

lly h as exclusiv e jurisdiction to dete rmine all monetar y c laims EldredL. Re

id (Plainti ff) sue d Jason Petty (Defendant) fo

r “pain a nd suffe ring wit h mental stress” alleged to have resulted from the d

efenda nt’s fail ure to time

ly r espond to Plaintiff’s request for pain medication. Summary judg ment was entered in favor of Defe ndant on the grounds that the trial court la

cked jur isdiction a

nd that the

defenda nt was immune pursua

nt to T.C.A. § 9-8- 307(h).
The plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Tenne ssee Department of Correction incarcerated

at the Nor

thwest Cor

rection al Center . Defen dant is a correctional officer employ ed by the department at that facility . The complaint allege s that the d

efenda nt failed to respond to Plaintiff’s request

for pain medic ation. The motion for summary judgment was supported by the affida vit of Def endant w hich state s:
Comes no w J as on Pe tt y and a fter having been duly sworn depos es and says the f ollo wing: I am employed

by the Tennessee Department of Correction as a correctional officer at the Nor thwest Correctional Center. On the even

ing of Jan uary 27, 1996 a

t approxim at el y 1 2:00 A.M. the emergency

call button for the Plaintiff’s room was pressed. When I arrived at his ce

ll, Eldred Reid informed me that he wan ted his medication. I informe d m y superior who instructed me to call the y ard offi cer . The y ard off

icer ad vised me th at he would pick up inmate Reid as soo n as possib le. I informed Mr. Reid of

my a ctions.
The appellant’s brief cites five issues. However, we perceive the issue to be whether the trial court er red in g ranting Defend ant summar

y ju dgment.
The Tennessee C laims Co mmission ha s exclusive jurisdict ion to dete

rmine all monetary claims ag ainst the s tatefor the negligent care , custody or control of pe rsons. Although the state is not a named party to this action, it is appare nt from the comp laint that Plaintiff is seeking recovery agains t the def

endant in his offic ial c apacity. See Thomas v. Spence , No. 01A01-9105- CH-00161 (Tenn. App. Aug. 14, 1991) (W.L . 15 3220). T .C.A. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(E) 1 pertain s toagains t the state falling within one

(1) or mo

re of the following

categ ories:

. . . . (E) negligent c are, cu stody and contr

ol of per sons; persons confine d to penal institu t ions maintained by the state. Learue v . State , 757 S.W.2d 3, 5 (Tenn. App. 1987 ). It

is undisput

ed that the d efenda

nt is a stat

e employ ee and th at the acts complained of were within the scope of his employ ment.
T. C.A. § 9-8-307 (h) prov ides that “ [s]tate off

icers a nd employ

ees are absolutel y immune from liability fo r act s or omissions within the scope of the officer’s or employ ee’s office or employment, except for willful, malicious, or criminal acts or omissions or for acts or omissions done for personal gain.” The c omplaintcontains no allegations of “willful, malicious, or criminal acts or omissions or for acts or omissions done for personal gain.” See Goodw in v. Bell , No. 01-A01-9111-CV-00402 (Tenn. App. Feb. 14, 1992) (W.L . 24988).

Summary judgment is to be g

ranted i f the “pl eading s, deposit ions, answ ers to interrog atories, admissions on file, to gether with the a

ffidavit s, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any materia

l fact and that

the moving party

is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56.03 T.R.C.P. The trial court must take the strongest legitimate view of the evidenc e in favor of the nonmoving party , allow all reasonable inferences in fa vor of that party, a

nd discar d all countervailing evidenc e. Once it is shown by

the moving

party there is no genuine issue of material fact, the nonmov

ing par ty mu st then demo nstrate, by a

ffidavit s or disco very

materia ls, that the

re is a genuine, material fact dispute. The nonmoving

party cannot simply

rest upon its pleadings. Byrd v. Hall , 847 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. 1993).

We affirm t

he dismissa

l by the trial court on t

he basis that

it lacked jurisdiction and that the defendant, Jason Petty, is immune from liability pursuant to T.C.A. § 9-8-307(h). The complaint further seeks injunctive relief concer ning his medication, bei ng fu rnished with a new crutch foot and concerning the delivery of his mail. However, there are no alleg ations in the complaint or indications in the record t h at the defendant has the duty or wherewithal to grant the relief requested. The judgment of the court below is af firmed and the costs of

this appeal are taxed to Mr . R ei d, fo r w hi ch ex ec ut io n m ay i ss ue if ne ce ss ar y.______________________________ FAR MER , J.

______________________________ CRAWFORD, P.J., W.S. (Conc urs)

______________________________ LI LL ARD, J. (Conc

urs)