1 Rule 10 (Court of App eals). Memorandum Opinion . – (b) The Court, with concurrence of all judges partici pating in the cas

e, may affir

m, reverse or

modify the act

ions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would h ave no precedenti al value. When a case is decided by memorandum opinion i t shall be designated “ME MOR AND UM O PINIO N,” shall not be publishe

d, and shal

l not be cited or relied on fo r any reas on in a subsequent unrelated cas e. 

### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT JACKSON July 2000 Session EMMANUEL PAGE v. DOCTOR R. CRANTS, ET AL 

### . Appeal from the Circuit Court for Hardeman County No. 9201 Jon Kerry Blackwood, Judge

No. W1999-02127-COA-R3-CV - Decided August 15, 2000

An inmate sentence

d in Wisconsin

and transferre

d to Tennessee, w

here he is prese

ntly incarcerated, appeals from the trial court’s order dismissing his petition for writ of habeas corpus . We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgmen

t of the Circuit C

ourt Affirmed.
D AVID R. F ARMER , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which W. F RANK C RAWFORD , P.J., W.S., and H OLLY K. L ILLARD , J., joined. Emmanuel Page, Pro Se

. Tom Anderson, Jackson, Tennessee, for the appellees, Doctor R. Crants and Percey Pitzer.
MEMORANDUM OPIN ION 1
The appellant, Emmanuel Page, has appealed from an order of the trial court

dismissing his action for failure to sta

te a claim upon which relief can be granted. See rule 12.02(6) Tenn. R. Civ. P. A motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted challeng es the sufficiency

of the claim, not the

strength of the p

laintiff’s proof

. The court deter

mines whether to gran t the motion based sol ely on the al

legation as stat

ed in the complaint

and, for purpose

s of th e motion, the allegations are taken as true. See Bell ex rel. Sny der v. I card, M errill , Cullis , Timm, Furen and Ginsburg, P.A. , 986 S.W.2d 550 (Tenn. 1999).
Mr. Page filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the Circuit Court of Hard ema n Co unt y, Tennessee statin g that he is incarcerated in the Whiteville Correctional Facility and that he w as sentenced to a life sentence in the State of Wisconsin. Following his sentence, he was transported-2-

from the State of Wisconsin prison system to the Whiteville Correctional Facility in Whiteville, Tennessee.
The petition d oes n ot identify the respondents. The petition further alleges that the Wisconsin

Department of Correction lacked authority to transfer the petitioner to the facility where he is presently incarcerated.
As Appellant correctly states in his brief, it is well es

tablished that habeas corpus relief for
a perso n incarcera ted as a result of having been co

nvicted of a crim

e is limited and ava

ilable in Tennessee only when the face of the judgment or the reco rd of the proceedings upon which the judgment is rendered reveals that the convicting court was without jurisdictionor authority over the appellant or that the appellant’s sentence of imprisonment has expired

. See Archer v. State , 851 S.W.2d 157, 164 (Tenn. 199 3); Passarella v. State , 891 S.W.2d 619, 627 (Tenn. Crim.App. 1994). Mr. Page’s petition does not so allege. If, from the face of the pe tition, the reviewing court finds nothing to indicate

that the appellant’s challenged convictions might be void or not entitled to any relief, the court shall dismiss the petition and refuse t he issuance of the writ. Tennessee Code Annotated § 29-21-109 (1980). Moreover, habeas corpus proceedings a re essentially

civil in nature and the rules of civil p

rocedure are

applicable wher

e consistent with

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 29-21-101 to -109 (1980). Rule 12 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure provides trial courts the a uthority to dismiss p leadings which fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Mr. Page has not alleged that the convicting court

in Wisconsin was without jurisdiction or authority over him or that his sentence of imprisonment has expired.
The order of the trial court dismissing the petition for writ of habeas corpus is affirmed and the costs of this appeal are taxed to the appellant, Emmanuel Page, for which execution may issue if n eces sar y.

___________________________________ DAVID R. FARMER, JUDGE