# FILED

January 21, 1999 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Court Cle rk CHRISTOPHER M. HAWKIN S, ) et al, ) ) Plaintiffs/Appell

ants, ) Appeal No.

) 01-A-01-9803-CH-00164 v. ) ) Davidson Chancery DON SUNDQUIST, Governor, ) No. 97-3371-II et al, ) ) Defendants/Appel

lees. )

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. HAWKIN S, Pro Se #232697 N.W.C.C . POB 660 Route One (1) Tiptonville, Tenn

essee 38079

JOHN KNOX WALKUP Attorney General and Reporter
MICHAEL MOORE Solicitor General
PAMELA S. LORCH Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights and Claim

s Division Second Floor, Cor

dell Hull Building 425 Fifth Avenue No

rth Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0488 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE 

# OPINION-2- This is a complaint alleg ing violation of 42 U. S.C. section 1983. Plaintiffs/appella

nts are pro se and the pl

eadings ar e very difficult to c omprehend

as voluminous hand

written documents

are submitted in suppor

t of the complaint which are genera

l and conclusory with limited and elusive f actual assertions.

Thesetwo inmates were formerly housed at Northea st C orrectional Complex in Mountain City, Te nnessee. While so i

ncarcerated th

ey allege that t hey were disciplined a

nd punished in derogation of Tennessee De

partment of Correctionspolicies, and no spec ific allegations w

ere 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 tothe Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm an

d in mate Williams resided at Hardiman County Cor

rectional Facilit

y.

Defendantsfiled a combined Rule 12 motion accompanied by an affidavit which w

as treated as a mot

ion for summary judgm

ent.

The trial court he

ld: On October 9, 1997, Plaintiffs Christopher M. Hawkins and Henry A. Wi lliams filed a pe

tition styled "Requesti ng the Court to Issue an Order for a Temporary Restraining

Order and an Order to Show Cau se fo r Preliminary Injunc

tion. A review of

the numerouspleadings and exhibits filed by Plaintiffs revea

ls that Plaintiffs or

iginally s ou ght the following relief: 1) appointment of counsel ; and 2) restraining

order and in

j unction prohibiting D efendants from transferri ng Plaintiffs from

the Northeast Correctional Comp

lex; and 3) restraining

order and injuncti

o n prohibiting Defendantsfrom unlawfully p u nishing and harassing Plaintiffs for complaining about the conditions of their confinement; and 4) hearing regarding the reasons that Plaintiffs were placed on loc

kdown without any due p rocess hearing. On De ce mber 31, 1997 the Cour t denied Plaintiffs ' request for a temporary r

estraining order an

d show ca use hearing. This case is before the

Court on pro se Pl aintiffs ' Moti on for Appointment of C ounsel. There is n

o absolute right to counsel i n 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 Plaint

iffs' request for

counsel is denied. Prese ntly before the Court is Defendants' Moti

on t o Dismiss and/or for Summary Ju dgment. Because the Court is considering an affi

davit submitted by Def endants in support of this motion, it wi ll be reviewed as a su mmary judgment motion. As stated in Sergeant Peach's affidavit, Plaintiffs were transferredfrom the Northeast Correctional Complex in the fall of 1977. Not only h ave Plaintiffs fa iled to allege any right to incarceration a

t a particular pri son, but the issue of their transfer is now mo

ot. Any claim based on

their transfer is dismissed. Plaintiffs also ask for a restraining order and inju nc tion prohibiting Defenda nts from unjustly hara

ssing and punishing them for com plaining about prison

l ife. Pl aint iffs' allegation regardi ng this "unjust harassm

ent and punishment" are conclusory and d o not state a claim

against the Defendants. Plaintiffs al so as k the Court to set a sho w causehearing regarding t heir placement on lo ckdown without adue process hearing . Due process pro tection is not accorded to prison discipline which does not impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in rela

tion to t he ordinary incidents of priso n life. Sa ndlin v . Conner , 115 S.Ct. 2293 (1995). Lockdow n i s not an atypical and significant

hardship in prison life

and therefore there

is no due process protect ion. The above claims are dismissed.

The trial court correctly refusedto appoint counsel for the appellants in this civil action

. Barish v. Met r o Gov't , 627 S.W.2d 953, 955 (Tenn.App.1981).

A ppellants seek to have the cour t "restrain" the ap

pellees fro m transferring

them to otherprisons. Prisoner s have no constitutional right to be housed in a particular se

curity prison

or to b e 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 Appellant

s, without any speci

fications of

persons, specific incidents, or specific time f rame, simply char

ge defendants with

"u njust harassment

and punishment." Th

ese punishments include "loc k down " and segregation from ge

neral prison populatio

ns in some instances.-4- Making all allowances fo r the inarticulate

character of A

ppe llan ts' pleadings, the alleged actions simply do not ri se to constitutional dign ity. Sandin v. Connor

, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1 995); 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 j udgment was properl y granted and is affirmed.

Costs are asses sed agai nst Appellants and the case remanded for collection of costs.

__________________________ ______ _ _ WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE

CONCUR:

__________________________________ _ BEN H. CANTRELL, P

RES. JUDGE, M.S.

__________________________________ _ PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JUDGE