### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE June 2000 Session RONALD L. DAVIS v. TENNESSEE BOARD OF PAROLES, ET AL 

### .

Direct Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County No. 983555-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2000-00668-COA-R3-CV - Filed July 19, 2000

This is another in a ser

ies of cases file

d by a certain pri

son inmate, Ronald L. Davis , this time seeking the issuance of a common law writ of certiorari on the basis that the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole imprope rly refused to

grant him early re

lease. The boar

d cited the seriou

sness of the offense for which he was convicted as the basis for its decision and moved for dismissal of the pe tition or alternatively for summary judgment. The trial court held this suit to be barred b y Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-812 which prohibits the filing of subsequent lawsuits by inmates who have u

npaid costs relat

ed to previous suits. The trial court dismissed this case under Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-812 and on the basis that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. We affirm. Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed

W ILLIAM B

. C AIN , J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which B EN H. C ANTRELL , P.J., M.S., and P ATRICIA J. C OTTRELL , J., joined. Ronald L. Davis, Pikeville, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, Micha el E. Moo re, Solicitor General, and Stephanie R. Reevers, Assistant Attorney General, for the appellee, Tennessee Board of Paroles.1 Rule 10(b) of the Ru les of the Court of A

ppeals of Tennes see reads as fol lows: The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no precendential value. When a case is de cide d by memorandum

opinion it shall

be designated “M

EMORANDUM OPINIO N,” shall notbe published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any reason in any unrelated case. -2- MEMORANDUM OPIN ION 1 On December 1, 1998, Ronald L. Davis filed his Petition for Common Law Writ of

Certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, complaining that the Tennessee Board

of Paroles had refused to grant him

early release. In granting the Motion to Dismiss and Summary Judgment, the trial court held:

With respect to the motion to dis miss or for summary judgment, the Court grants the motion fo

r summary judgment a

s follows. The Court concludes from the papers filed by the r espo ndents that the petitioner’s suit is barred by Te nness ee C ode Annotated section 41-21-812 which prohibits the filing of subse quent l awsuits by inmates w ho have unpaid costs ass essments related to previous suits. In support of the motion for summary j udgment the respondents have filed bills of costs showing that Mr. Davis ha s accrued thousands of dollar

s of unpaid costs in D

avidson County Circu

it Co ur t alone. The petitioner has not stated in his lawsuit any request for injunc t ive relief as the result of a substantial thr

eat of irrepar

able injury or ser

ious physical harm

. Thus, the conditions stated in Tennesse e Code Annotated s

ecti on 41 -21-812 have been complied with, and the Court determines that the above-cap tione d matter shall be dismissed for fail

ure of Mr. Davis to

pay such costs. The Court additionally grants the motion to dismiss beca use the only proper respondent

in this case is the T

ennessee Board o

f Paroles. Tenne

sse e Co de Annotated sections 27-9-101 through 114 and Fairhaven Corp. v. Tennessee Health Facilities Commission , 566 S.W.2d 885 (Tenn. App. 1976 ) provid e that writs of certiorari challenging paro le decisions of the

Tennessee Boar

d of Paroles should name the Board of Paroles and only the Boa rd o f Paroles as the respondent as ultimately

any relief awarded can only be afforded by the Tennessee Board of Paroles. Therefore the Court dismisses the above-captioned action a s to any party except for the T

ennessee Board o

f Paroles. Finally, the Court grants the motion to dismiss for failure to s tate a claim-3-

upon which relief can be granted because the petitioner has failed to allege specific material facts demonstrating that the Parole Board acted ill egally, fraudulently or arbitrarily. The conclusory allegations made by the petitioner

that the hearing was “mock” are insuf

ficient. With respect to the petitioner’s theo

ry that seriousne

ss of the offense w as not a

legitimate reason for denial of parole, the Court notes that Tennessee Code Annotated se ction 40-35-503(

b) sp ecifically pr ovides that the Board may refuse

to release an inmate on parole if doing so would depreciate the seriousness

of th e crime for which the defendant stands convicted. In Arnold v. Board of Paroles , 956 S .W.2d 4 78, 482-83 (Tenn. 1997), the Tenne

ssee Supreme Court held that it is legal for the Boardof Paroles to consider the seriousness of an inmate’s offense in its determinations regarding parole. We agree with the chancellor in all respects. As to Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21- 812 , the r ecord before the Court shows the following unpaid costs of previous litigation assessed against Ronald L. Davis by the Circuit Court of Davidson County. 1. Ronald Davis v. Coi Abrams, et al No. 97C-368 $ 206.00 2. Ronald L. Davis v. Donal Cambell, et al No. 98C-237 $ 406.00 3. Ronald L. Davis v. Gary Gray, et al No. 97C-1116 $ 265.00 4. Ronald L. Davis v. Qualls, et al No. 98C-343 $ 308.50 5. Ronald L. Davis v. Don Sundquist, et al No. 98C-287 $ 213.50 6. Ronald L. Davis v. Wilson Sporting Goods Co. No. 97C-2595 $ 194.50 7. Ronald L. Davis v. Sohnia W. Hong, et al No. 97C-2434 $ 227.50 8. Ronald L. Davis v. J. Edwin Ralston, et al No. 97C-451 $ 383.50 On March 29, 2000, this Court released its opinion in Davisv. Holland, No. M1999-00460- COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 313537 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), applying Tennessee Code Annotated section 41-21-812 aga inst this same Ronald L. Davis. Contempor

aneous with the ca

se at bar is Davis v. Campbell , No. M1999-02294-C OA-R3-CV

(Tenn. Ct. App. filed July 13, 2000), wherein this Court affirms the chancellor’s memorandum finding that this plaintiff, Ronald L. Davis, hadoutstanding unpaid court costs in the amount of $2,664. On appeal, the appellant challenges the constitutionality of Tennessee Code An notate d section 41-21-812. This challenge cannot be raised and heard for the fi

rst time on appeal.

Lawrence v. Stanford

, 655 S.W.2d 927, 929 (Tenn. 1983). The judgment of the Chancellor is in all respects affirmed and the costs are assess

ed against-4-

Ronald L. Davis.

________________________________________________ WILLIAM B. CAIN, JUDGE