Mosby v. Colson, No. W2006-00490-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 8/14/2006), W2006-00490-COA-R3-CV.
| Decision Date | 14 August 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. W2006-00490-COA-R3-CV.,W2006-00490-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | MICHAEL MOSBY v. ROLAND COLSON, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Michael Mosby, Henning, TN, pro se
Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Michael B. Schwegler and Kellena Baker, Assistant Attorney General, Nashville, TN, for Appellees
OPINION
The plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction, filed a pro se lawsuit against numerous prison officials and personnel of the department pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County, Tennessee. Therein, the plaintiff complained that prison officials terminated his prison job in retaliation for his filing numerous grievances against them. The plaintiff alleged violations of the United States Constitution, Tennessee statutes, and various policies of the Tennessee Department of Correction. In response, the attorney general, acting on behalf of the defendants, filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief could be granted. In turn, the plaintiff filed what amount to numerous amended complaints to allege new allegations or to add additional defendants. The trial court subsequently granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. The trial court also held that the plaintiff could proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. On appeal, the plaintiff asks this Court to review whether the trial court erred in (1) granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, (2) denying the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, (3) denying the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. The plaintiff also asks this Court to determine whether he should be allowed to proceed in forma pauperis despite the fact that the federal courts previously dismissed three or more of his lawsuits for being frivolous or failing to state a claim. We affirm the trial court's decisions to grant the defendants' motion to dismiss and to deny the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. While the plaintiff was entitled to file an amended complaint without leave of court, we find no error in the trial court's refusal to allow the plaintiff to submit his amended complaints. Finally, we hold that his lawsuit should have been dismissed at the trial level pursuant to section 41-21-801 et seq. of the Tennessee Code, which governs lawsuits filed by inmates. Accordingly, we find that the present appeal is so utterly lacking in merit that we remand this case to the trial court for the assessment of all costs, expenses, and fees associated with this lawsuit against the plaintiff in accordance with section 41-21-801 et seq. of the Tennessee Code.
Michael Mosby ("Mosby" or "Appellant") is an inmate in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction ("TDOC") serving an eighteen year prison sentence. On October 27, 2005, Mosby, while being housed at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary ("Prison") in Henning, Lauderdale County, Tennessee and acting as a pro se litigant, filed the following handwritten documents in the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County:
1. Notice of Filing;
2. Civil Rights Complaint, which contained accompanying exhibits;
3. Motion for Preliminary Injunction;
4. Affidavit of Michael Mosby;
5. Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for a Preliminary Injunction;
6. Inmate Affidavit Pursuant to T.C.A. §§ 41-21-801, 41-21-805, which contained accompanying exhibits;
7. Proof of Satisfied Fees;
8. Pleading Setting out Parole, Earliest Eligibility, Total Sentence Imposed, which contained accompanying exhibits;
9. Plaintiff's Request for the Production of Documents;
10. Request for Admissions; and
11. Notice of Amended Complaint.
These documents set forth a chain of events that served as the impetus for Mosby filing the present action in the circuit court.
In his Civil Rights Complaint, Mosby named the following TDOC employees, in both their individual and official capacities, as defendants: Roland D. Colson, Assistant Commissioner of Operations; Henry Steward, Deputy Warden at the Prison; Margaret Smith, Unit 2 Unit Manager at the Prison; Norman Layne, Unit 2 Case Manager at the Prison; Larry Winbush, Unit 2 Inmate Relations Coordinator at the Prison; Stacie Alexander, Inmate Grievance Chairperson at the Prison; Paul Conquest, Chaplain and member of the Inmate Grievance Committee at the Prison; Steve Harvell, Corrections Officer and member of the Inmate Grievance Committee at the Prison; and B. Cornwell, whose position is not set forth in the record (collectively referred to as the "Defendants" or "Appellees").1 In his Notice of Amended Complaint, Mosby provided notice of his intention to file an amended complaint at a later date to add "Corporal Terry Bentley, J. Hayles, B. Person and Nurse Privit" as defendants in the action.
In February 2005, Mosby apparently had been assigned to work as a "rockman" in Unit 2 at the Prison. At some point, Prison officials decided that Mosby should no longer be allowed to perform this job. According to Mosby, an unidentified Prison official informed him that the reason he was no longer allowed to work as a "rockman" was because Prison officials did not appreciate his frequent use of the Prison's inmate grievance system. Thereafter, Mosby sent several letters to TDOC officials asking for an explanation as to why Unit 2 employees were not allowing him to work as a "rockman."
In March or April 2005, Mosby filed a grievance against Defendant Winbush for "denial of equal opportunity." Mosby alleged that Defendant Winbush subsequently told him that he "had better drop the grievance." As a result, Mosby filed another grievance against Defendant Winbush for "threatening an offender." According to Mosby, he met with Defendant Winbush and agreed to dismiss the grievance if he were allowed to return to work as a "rockman." Mosby apparently was chosen to work as a "rockman" shortly thereafter. Mosby alleged that, while he was working, Defendant Alexander instructed a supervising corrections officer to "fire" him "if he sneezes to hard."
In his complaint, Mosby alleged that on April 22, 2005, Defendant Cornwell told him that "your cousin lied on me." Mosby also asserted that Defendant Cornwell was placed in charge of his area on April 29, 2005 and refused to provide him with a shower. According to Mosby, Defendant Cornwell's supervisor had to order her to provide Mosby with a shower. He further alleged that on May 6, 2005, Defendant Cornwell once again refused to provide him with a shower after he returned from his recreational time. That same day, Mosby filed a grievance against Defendant Cornwell for denying him a shower on both dates. Mosby stated in his complaint that Defendants Smith and Layne refused to investigate the allegations in his grievance and told him that his failure to cooperate with Unit 2 staff would place his job at risk.
Mosby subsequently requested a grievance hearing, which was held on May 19, 2005 before the Prison's Inmate Grievance Committee and was partially composed of Defendants Alexander, Conquest, and Harvell. According to Mosby, he eavesdropped on the committee's deliberations and overheard Defendant Alexander propose a "job drop." He alleged that other members of the committee quickly agreed without further deliberation and that Defendant Alexander used an "intimidating tone of voice" toward an inmate serving on the committee who suggested that the recommendation was not fair. The committee subsequently issued its findings, which included a recommendation for a "non-disciplinary job drop." Defendant Steward affirmed the decision. Mosby appealed the decision, and Defendant Colson denied his administrative appeal.
In his complaint, Mosby alleged that, in response to another inmate's unrelated grievance, Defendants Layne and Smith stated "that having a job while on segregation increases an inmate[']s chances of being released from segregation." He stated that, armed with this knowledge, Defendants Colson, Steward, Smith, Layne, Alexander, Conquest, and Harvell sought to terminate his job in an effort to ruin his chances for release from segregation and for early parole.
On June 16, 2005, Mosby asked Defendant Cornwell for permission to use the telephone to make his allotted monthly telephone call. Mosby alleged that, when he was unable to secure a connection, he instructed Defendant Cornwell to log the call as "incomplete" so that he could retain his monthly phone privilege. According to Mosby, Defendant Cornwell agreed to make the notation in the telephone log book. When he attempted to place another telephone call on June 20, 2005, Mosby alleged that the corrections officer told him that Defendant Cornwell entered a notation in the log book showing that he used the telephone on June 16, 2005 for thirty minutes.
As a result of being denied telephone access, Mosby filed a grievance against Defendant Cornwell for "falsifying Unit 2 Bravo's Telephone log book." Defendant Smith responded to the grievance by filing a written report stating that telephone access was a "continuous situation" with Mosby and that he was allowed to use the telephone more than once per month. Mosby alleged that he instructed Defendant Alexander to obtain the telephone records for the prison from June 16, 2005 to prove that Defendant Cornwell falsified the log book. At the grievance hearing held on July 5, 2005, Mosby asked Defendant Alexander about the records, but he alleged that Defendant Alexander stated...
To continue reading
Request your trial