### IN THE COURT OF APP EALS OF TENNESS EE AT NAS HVILLE A ssi gne d onBrie fs January 9, 200 8
MICH AEL PHI LLI PS

v. TEN NES SEE B OAR

D O F P ROB ATIONAN D P AR OLE Appeal f romthe Chancery Court for Davidson Cou nty No. 06-3051-III Ellen H. Lyl e, Chancellor

No. M2007- 00573-COA-R 3-CV -F iled May 29, 2008 This appea l involves the denial of a petition for a writ of cer tiorari. Theappellant prisoner wa s denied a hearing in f

ront of the appellee board of probation and parole

. The prisoner the rea fter f iled a petition with the chanc ery court, see king r eview of th e board’s dec ision. The chanc ery court e nte re d an orde r statin g that, in or de r to av oid dis mis sa l of his pe tit ion , the priso ne r wa s re qu ir e d to file, am o n g o th er documents, a summons for ea ch def endant, with a c opy

of the pe tition for eac h summons to be issued. The prisoner failed to f ile the summonses, and the cha ncer y court dismissed th e p et i t i o n without prejudice. Theprisoner a ppeals the dismissal, alleg ing nume rous fe dera l constitutional violations. We a ffirm, findingthat the cha ncer y court prope rly

dismiss ed the pe tition wi tho ut p re

judic e fo r f

a ilureto f ilea summo ns . Tenn. R. App . P . 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgme nt of th e Chancery Court Affi rm ed H OL L Y M. K I RBY , J

. , delivere d the opinion of the Court, in which A L AN E. H I G H ERS , P.J ., W.S ., concur red; W. F RAN K C RAW FORD , J

. , n o tp art i ci p at i n g. Mic ha e l Ph ill ips , M ountain C ity , T e nn e sse e , a pp e lla nt p ro se Tenne ssee B oard of

Probation and Parole, a

ppellee (no brief f

iled)R u l e 1 0 . M E M OR A N D U M OP I N I ON 1
T h is C o u rt, w ith the c o n c u rr e n c e o f a ll ju d g e s p a rtic ip a ting in the c a se , m a y a ff irm , re v e rs e o r m o d ify t he a c tio n s o f

t he t ri al co urt by me m o randum op i ni o n when a f o rma l op i ni o n wo ul d have no prec edent i al val ue . W he n a ca s e i s deci ded b y memo r andum opi 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 hal l not b e p ub l i shed, and s h a ll n o t 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. T h e re c o rd b e fo re this C o u rt is d e v o id o f an y re sp o n siv e p le a d ing s fro m a n y o f th e re sp o n d e n ts. A d d iti o n a lly, 2 t he A pp el l ee i n t hi s m at t er d i d not f i l e a bri ef

, l eav i ng t hi s Co ur t wi t h a dear t h of back gr ound i nf

ormat i on i n t hi s ca s e. C hapt er 21, P ar t 8 of

T i t l e 41o f

t he T enn es s ee C od e out l i nes t he procedur es t hati nmat es mus t f ol l ow whe n 3 f i l i ng l aw suit s.

S ec t i o n 4 1

- 2 1

- 8 0 5 st ates: 4 (a )A n y inm a te w h o fi le s a c la im w ith a n a ff id a v it o f i n a b ili ty t o p a y c o sts sh a ll fil e a se p a ra te a ff id a v it (c o n tinu e d ...) -2- M EM OR

AN DU MOP IN ION 1 P e t i t i o n e r /Ap p e l l an t M i c h a e l P h i l l i p s ( “ P h i l l i p s ” ) i s i n c ar c e r at e d i nM o unt a i nC i ty, Tenne ssee. On Septe mber 29, 2006, Phillips s ent a l et t er to the Responde nt/Appellee Te nnessee Bo ar d o f P ro b at i o n

an d P ar o l e ( “B o ar d ”) , s t at i n g: 2 After a ca ref ul reviewof all the statutes, rules and policies that wer e in exist enceon thedate of

my off ens es, a s w e ll a s a ll c ur

re nt l e g isl ativ e e na c tme nts in r e g ard to pa ro le , I havec ometo t

hec on c lus ion

that th e B oard is act ingill e g a lly and wh oll y e x c e e d i n gth e a

uth o r i ty v e s t e d

i nth e mb y th e G e n e r a l A s s e mb l y. Ha vin gc on c lud e d th at th e B oa rd wa s a c tin gill e g a lly , Ph ill ips re qu e ste d th at th e B oa rd “ imm e di a

t e ly s e t a d ate ” f o r a p ar o legr ant h e ar in g . The Boar d d e n ie d th is r e qu e s t, n o ti n gth at P h il lip s ’ s n e xt parolehearing w as sche duled for August, 2011. After rec eivingthis denial of his reque st for a he aring , on Dec ember 18, 2 0 06, Phill ips petitioned the Chance ry

Court for Davidson County , Tenne ssee f or a writ of ce rtio ra ri. In the p et ition, P hillips sought “a judicial r eview of the re cent a ction of the Te nnesseeBoa rd of Parole . . . in the matter of a

ref usal to set a parole grant he aringacc ording to law.” Phillips alleg ed that the Boa rd wa s “ac ting illeg ally

and [had] ag grieve d [P hillips ] by its actions.” The style of Phillips’s petition indicated that it was filed a g ainst th e Boa rd and its member s. The re cord c ontains no re sp on siv e ple a din g s f

ro m any of there sp on de nts
. On Janu ary 3, 20 07 , th e Cha

nc e ry Cou rt e nte re d a

n o rder givingPhi llips thi rt y da y s to comply with the require ments of Tenne ssee Code Annotated §§ 41-21- 801 through -818, in order to avoid dismiss al of his petition without prejudice. Specific al l y , the orde r re quired that Phillips 3 file a pauper’ s oath; an affidavit containing the information require d by section 41-21- 805; partial 4(

. . . con t i n u ed) 4 wi t h t he f

o l l o wi ng i nf

o rma t i o n: (1) A co m p l et e l i stof every l awsui t o r cl ai m p revi o usl y f i l ed b y t he i nm at e, wi t ho ut r ega r d t o whet her t he i nmat e was i nca r cer at ed at t he t i me any cl ai m o r ac t i on was f i l ed ; and (2) Fo r each cl ai m or act i o n l i st ed i n s ub sect i o n (a) : (A ) T h e o p e ra tive fac ts fo r w h ic h re lief w a s so u g h t; ( B ) T h e ca s e n ame , c as e n u mber a n d c ou r t i n w h i ch t h e s u i t or cl ai m wa s f

i l ed; ( C) T h e l eg al t h eor y on w h i ch t h e r el i ef s ou g h t w as ba s ed; (D ) T he i d ent i f

i cat i o n of each p art y nam ed i n t he act i o n; and (E ) T he f i nal resul t o f

the acti o n, incl ud i ng d i smi ss al as f ri vo l o us or mal i ci ous un der t hi s par t or ot her wi s e. ( b) I f t h e af f i dav i t f i l ed u n der t h i s s ec t i on s t at es t h ata pr ev i ou s s u i t w as di s mi s sed as f r i v ol ou s or m a licio u s, the a ff

id a v it m u st sta te the d a te o f t h e fi n a l o rd e r a ff irm ing the d ism issa l. (c) T he af

f i d avi t m ustbe acco m p a n ie d by a curr ent cert i f i ed co p y of t he i nm at e’ s t rus t acco unt sta te m e n t. T

. C

. A

. § 4 1

- 2 1

- 8 0 5 (20 0 6 ).

S e c tio n 4 1 -2 1 -8 0 7 sta te s, in p a rt: 5 (a ) An i n mat e s ee k i n g t o br i n g a c i v i l a ct i on or a ppea l a j u dg men t i n a c i v i l a ct i on or pr o ceed i ng wi t h ou t pr epa y men t of

f ee s or s ec u r i t y t h er ef

or , i n a ddi t i on t o f

i l i n g t h e af

f i dav i t r equ i r ed by § 41- 21- 8 0 5 , sha ll su b m it a c e rtifi e d c o p y o f t h e tru st fun d a c c o u n t state m e n t, o r th e institutio n a l eq u iva le n t, f or t h e i n mat e f

or t h e s i x - mon t h pe r i od i mmedi at el y pr ec edi n g t h e f i l i n g of t h e compl ai n t or n ot i ce of appe al , obt ai n ed f

r om t h e a ppr opr i at e of

f i ci al of e ac h f ac i l i t y a t w h i ch t h e i n mat e i s or w as c on f i n ed. ( b) ( 1) I f a n i n mat e br i n g s a c i v i l a ct i o n o r f i l es an a ppea l i n f

or ma pau per i s , t h e i n mat e s h al l be re q u ire d to p a y th e fu ll a m o u n t o f a filing fe e . T h e c o u rt sh a ll a sse ss a n d , w h e n fun d s e x ist, c o llec t, as a p art i al pa y men t of a n y c ou r t f

ee s r equ i r ed by l aw , a n i n i t i al pa r t i al f i l i n g f ee of t we n t y pe r cent (2 0 % ) o f t h e gr a te r o f t h e a v e ra g e m o n thly: ( A) D epos i t s t o t h e i n mat e’ s a cc ou n t ; or ( B ) B al ance i n t he i nm at e’ s acco unt f o r t he si x- m o nt h pe ri o d i m m ed i at el y prece d i ng the fi ling o f t h e c o m p la int o r n o tice o f ap p e a l.
T

. C

. A

. § 4 1

- 2 1

- 8 0 7 (a), (b)(1) ( 2 0 0 6 ). -3- pay ment of the filingfeeas re quired by section 41-21-807; and a summons in duplicate f or ea ch 5 defe ndant, with a copy

of the pe tition for eac h summons to be issued. On Janu ary 25 , 2 00 7, Phi llips fi le d th e a ff ida vit re qu ir e d by se c tio n 41- 21 -8 05 , as we ll a s a pauper ’s oath. In his affida vit, Phi llips acknowledg ed that he ha d filed “se vera l lawsuits, civil and criminal, in the cour

ts o f th e S t at e of Tenne ssee sincehis arre st and incarceration in 1968.” He stated, howe ver, that he had kept no copies of thelawsuits he filed a nd explained that, “due to the passag e of time,”he had no independent recollec tion of the nature of his pre vious lawsuits. P hillips did not file any

of the summonses re quired by the J anua ry 3 o rd er. A ccordingly, on Februar y 8, 2007, the C h a

n c e r y Cou r t entere d an orde r dismissing Philli ps’s petition without prejudice for failure to file the re quired summonses. Philli ps now appea ls the di smissal without prejudice of hi s petition.P hi l l i p s general l y argues t hat we shoul d i gno re “l egal i st i c requir em ent s” b ecause he i s a p ri soner represent i ng 6 him self

. H o w ev er, f

ar fro m b eing a m ea ningless req uirem en t , t he f i l i ng o f t he co m p l aint and t he i ssua nc e o f a sum m o ns, ar e bas i c, es s ent i al r equi r ement s f or com menci ng an act i on. T hey provi de t he def endan t s or r es po ndent s wi t h n ot i ce t hat a n a c tio n ha s c o m m e n c e d a n d tha t t h e y m u st a p p e a r in c o u rt. See T en n . R. Ci v . P. 4. 02. -4- On appe al, Philli ps asserts that hehas bee n denied rights guara nteed unde r the F irst, Fifth, Sixth, Se ve nth , Eighth , an d Fo ur te e nth Am e ndme nts to the Un ite d Stat e s Cons tit uti on . Hea sk s th is Court to re ve rs e the tria l c ourt ’s de nia l of his pe tit ion

fo r a writ o f c e rt iorari . Ph ill ips a lso re qu e sts a pp ointe d c ouns e l to a ssi st h im w iththi s c a se . T heB oa rd ha s n ot f ile d a brie f w iththi s Co ur

t. As on ly le g a l is su e s arepr e se nte d f or re vie w i n th is a

pp e a l, o ur

re vie w i s de novo on the rec ord, with no presumption of cor rec tness. Cam

pbell v. Fla. Steel Corp. , 919 S.W .2d 26, 35 (Tenn. 1996). A plaintiff commen ce s a ci vil lawsuit “by filing a complaint with the cler

k of the c ourt.” Tenn. R

. Civ. P . 3. After the complaint is filed, a summons must be issued; copies of both the summo ns and the c omp la int mus t th e n b e se rv e d o n th e de fe nd ant. Te nn . R. Civ . P. 4. 01 (1 ). Rul e 4.01 does not requir e the pe titioner or plaintiff to furnish th e cl erk o f th e cour t with a copy

of the summons. Id. Th e c omm e nts to R ule3 in dic ate that it

is a pp ro priate fo r l oc a l r

ule s and c us tom s to deter mine the manner

in which a summons sho u ld be dra wn up. Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 advisory commission comments (“Some cler ks by local cour

t rule may

want to require lawyers to file a summo ns – n ot t o to ll theru nn ingof a statut e of li mi tatio ns , b ut rathe r t o a ssi st thec le rk s’ wo rkloa ds

. Othe r cl e rk s may wa nt to hand le the c ho re the mse lve s. Ei the r p os iti on is a pp ro priate under r evised Rule 3.”) . Rule 4.04, howeve r, states, “The plainti ff shall furnish the per son making the servic e with such c opies of the summons and complaint as are nece ssary .” Tenn. R. Civ. P . 4.04. A c omp la int

or pe tit ion may bedis mis se d for failureto p ro se c uteif theplaint if

f o r p e tit ion e r f

a ils to f ile a summons without good re ason. Hod ge s v . At tor ne y Gen. , 43 S.W.3 d 918 , 920 (T e nn . Ct

. App. 2000) (a ffirmingthe cha ncer y court’s dismi ssal of a prisoner’s c omplaint for fa ilure to file a summons and failure to prosecute ). Although se lf-represe nted par ties areentitled to “fa ir and equal treatment by the cour ts,” Id. (c i t i n g Paehler v. Union Plant ers Nat’l Bank, In c. , 971 S.W .2d 393, 396 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997)) , they must c omply with applicable substantive a nd proce dural rule s. Id. (c i t i n g Edmunds on v . P ra tt, 945 S.W

. 2 d

7 5 4 , 7 5 5 ( T e nn . Ct

. Ap p . 1 9 9 6 ) )

. Sp e c if ic a ll y , a llp arti e s , in c lu d in gs e lf

- r e p rese nted parties, must c omply with Rules 3 and 4 of theTenne ssee Rules of Civil Procedure

. The trial c ourt 6 ha s th e inh e re nt a

uth ority to c ontr ol i ts do c ke t by dis mis sin g c a se s in wh ic h th e pa

rt ie s f a il t o c omp ly with p ro cedural rules or

court orde rs. See, e.g., Te nn . R. Civ . P. 41 .0 2( 1) ; see also Hodges , 43 S.W .3d at 921. Phill ips f ailed to c ause the nece ssary summonses to be issued, and g ives no explanation for his failure to do so. As a

result, his petition was dism issed without prejudice. Thetrial court wa s well within its authority to dismi ss Phil lips’s petitio n wi th o u t prejudicefor f ailure to file the nece ssary summonses. Bec ause the dismiss al is without prejudice, Phillips m ay re- file his petition,-5-

but he must c omply with theChance ry Court’s order . Acc ording ly , we f ind no error

in the Chance ry Court’s dismiss al without prejudiceof Philli ps’s petition. Th e de c isi on

of thetria l c ourt

is a ff ir me d. Th e cos ts o f t

his a pp e a l areto b e taxed

a g a ins t P e t i t i o n e r /Ap p e l l antM i c h a e l P h i l l i p s , f o r wh i c he x e c ut i o nm ay i s s u e i f n e c e s s ar y.

___________________________________ HOLLY M. KIRBY, JUDGE