FILED

January 21, 1999

Cecil W. Crowson

Appellate Court Clerk

CHRISTOPHER M. HAWKINS, )

et al, )

)

Plaintiffs/Appellants, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9803-CH-00164

v. )

) Davidson Chancery

DON SUNDQUIST, Governor, ) No. 97-3371-II

et al, )

)

Defendants/Appellees. )

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT FOR DAVIDSON COUNTY

AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE

THE HONORABLE CAROL L. McCOY, CHANCELLOR

HENRY A. WILLIAMS, Pro Se

#117522 H.C.C.F. POB 549

CHRISTOPHER M. HAWKINS, Pro Se

#232697 N.W.C.C. POB 660

Route One (1)

Tiptonville, Tennessee 38079

JOHN KNOX WALKUP

Attorney General and Reporter

MICHAEL MOORE

Solicitor General

PAMELA S. LORCH

Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights and Claims Division

Second Floor, Cordell Hull Building

425 Fifth Avenue North

Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0488

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE

OPINION
-2-

This is a complaint alleging violation of 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

Plaintiffs/appellants are pro se and the pleadings are very difficult to comprehend

as voluminous hand written documents are submitted in support of the complaint

which are general and conclusory with limited and elusive factual assertions.

These two inmates were formerly housed at Northeast Correctional

Complex in Mountain City, Tennessee. While so incarcerated they allege that

they were disciplined and punished in derogation of Tennessee Department of

Corrections policies, and no specific allegations were made against various

defendants, including the Governor. They have since been transferred and at the

time of these proceedings in the trial court, inmate Hawkins was assigned to the

Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm and inmate Williams resided at

Hardiman County Correctional Facility.

Defendants filed a combined Rule 12 motion accompanied by an

affidavit which was treated as a motion for summary judgment.

The trial court held:

On October 9, 1997, Plaintiffs Christopher M.

Hawkins and Henry A. Williams filed a petition styled

"Requesting the Court to Issue an Order for a Temporary

Restraining Order and an Order to Show Cause for

Preliminary Injunction.

A review of the numerous pleadings and exhibits filed

by Plaintiffs reveals that Plaintiffs originally sought the

following relief:

1) appointment of counsel; and

2) restraining order and injunction prohibiting

Defendants from transferring Plaintiffs from the Northeast

Correctional Complex; and

3) restraining order and injunction prohibiting

Defendants from unlawfully punishing and harassing

Plaintiffs for complaining about the conditions of their

confinement; and

4) hearing regarding the reasons that Plaintiffs

were placed on lockdown without any due process hearing.

On December 31, 1997 the Court denied Plaintiffs'

request for a temporary restraining order and show cause

hearing.

This case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs'

Motion for Appointment of Counsel. There is no absolute

right to counsel in a civil action. U.S. Constitution,

Amendment VI; Tenn. Constitution, Article I, §9; Barish v.
-3-

Metropolitan Government, 627 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn.App.

1981). The Plaintiffs' request for counsel is denied.

Presently before the Court is Defendants' Motion to

Dismiss and/or for Summary Judgment. Because the Court

is considering an affidavit submitted by Defendants in

support of this motion, it will be reviewed as a summary

judgment motion.

As stated in Sergeant Peach's affidavit, Plaintiffs were

transferred from the Northeast Correctional Complex in the

fall of 1977. Not only have Plaintiffs failed to allege any

right to incarceration at a particular prison, but the issue of

their transfer is now moot. Any claim based on their transfer

is dismissed.

Plaintiffs also ask for a restraining order and

injunction prohibiting Defendants from unjustly harassing

and punishing them for complaining about prison life.

Plaintiffs' allegation regarding this "unjust harassment and

punishment" are conclusory and do not state a claim against

the Defendants. Plaintiffs also ask the Court to set a show

cause hearing regarding their placement on lockdown

without a due process hearing. Due process protection is not

accorded to prison discipline which does not impose atypical

and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life. Sandlin v. Conner, 115

S.Ct. 2293 (1995). Lockdown is not an atypical and

significant hardship in prison life and therefore there is no

due process protection. The above claims are dismissed. 

The trial court correctly refused to appoint counsel for the appellants

in this civil action. Barish v. Metro Gov't, 627 S.W.2d 953, 955

(Tenn.App.1981).

Appellants seek to have the court "restrain" the appellees from

transferring them to other prisons. Prisoners have no constitutional right to be

housed in a particular security prison or to be given particular classifications.

Newell v. Brown, 981 F.2d 880, 883 (6th Cir.1992);Redd v. Gilless, 857 F.Supp.

601 (W.D.Tn.1994).

In this case Appellants, without any specifications of persons, specific

incidents, or specific time frame, simply charge defendants with "unjust

harassment and punishment." These punishments include "lock down" and

segregation from general prison populations in some instances.
-4-

Making all allowances for the inarticulate character of Appellants'

pleadings, the alleged actions simply do not rise to constitutional dignity.

Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); see

also Eldred L. Reid v. Jerry Stover and Charles Noles, No. 02-A-01-9601-CV00016 1996 WL 507502 Sept. 9, 1996 (W.S.Ct.App.Tn.).

The motion for summary judgment was properly granted and is

affirmed.

Costs are assessed against Appellants and the case remanded for

collection of costs.

__________________________________

WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE

CONCUR:

___________________________________

BEN H. CANTRELL, PRES. JUDGE, M.S.

___________________________________

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE