Willis v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction

• Decision Date: 27 August 2003
• Docket Number: No. M2000-01397-SC-R11-CV.,M2000-01397-SC-R11-CV.
• Citation: 113 S.W.3d 706
• Parties: Tony WILLIS et al. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

113 S.W.3d 706

Tony WILLIS et al. v. TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION.

No. M2000-01397-SC-R11-CV.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.

June 3, 2003 Session.

August 27, 2003.

Brian Dunigan,¹ Goodlettsville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Edward Tharpe.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; Michael W. Catalano, Associate Solicitor General, for the appellee, Tennessee Department of Correction.

OPINION

WILLIAM M. BARKER, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which FRANK F. DROWOTA, III, C.J., E. RILEY ANDERSON, ADOLPHO A. BIRCH, JR., and JANICE M. HOLDER, JJ., joined.

The issue in this case is the proper standard to be applied to motions to dismiss petitions for common-law writ of certiorari in prison disciplinary proceedings. This appeal involves a prisoner who was charged with and convicted of the disciplinary violation of attempted escape. The prisoner filed a petition for a common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County challenging the action of the disciplinary board arguing that it was illegal, arbitrary, and excessively punitive. The chancery court granted the Department of Correction's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim because the process provided to the petitioner was commensurate with the sanctions imposed upon him, and therefore, there was no violation or deprivation of due process. The majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, with Judge Koch dissenting. We granted Petitioner's request for permission to appeal, and after conducting our own de novo review of the record, we hold that the petitioner did state a claim for relief under the common-law writ of certiorari because his petition alleged that the disciplinary board failed to follow its own disciplinary guidelines and that the petitioner was substantially prejudiced thereby. At the same time, we agree with the Department of Correction that the petitioner did not state a claim for relief under the due process clause of the United States Constitution or the Tennessee Constitution. Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed in part, affirmed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The appellant, Edward Tharpe, is a prisoner at the Turney Center Industrial Prison and Farm. He and his cellmate, Tony Willis, were convicted of the disciplinary offense of attempted escape, based on the discovery of a pair of pliers in their cell and on information provided by a confidential informant. The disciplinary board punished them each with a thirty-day sentence of punitive segregation, involuntary administrative segregation, and a five-dollar fine. Tharpe and Willis appealed to the Warden, who upheld the decision of the disciplinary board. Petitioners thereafter appealed to the Commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Correction, who agreed with the Warden's affirmation of the decision.

Having exhausted their administrative remedies, Tharpe and Willis filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson County, seeking judicial review and reversal of their convictions. In their joint petition, they alleged that they were not given sufficient notice of the charges against them prior to the hearing; they were not given access to exculpatory evidence; and the disciplinary board did not independently assess the credibility of the confidential informant upon whose testimony it relied in convicting the petitioners. The petitioners alleged that because these actions were in violation of the Department of Correction Uniform Disciplinary Proceedings, their convictions were illegal and arbitrary.

The Attorney General, on behalf of the Department of Correction (Department), filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. A second motion to dismiss, with an attached memorandum of law,² was filed on February 25, 2000, because the first motion was not accompanied by a memorandum of law.

The Chancery Court granted the Department's motion to dismiss, finding that the petitioners failed to state a claim for which relief is available through a common-law writ of certiorari because the punishments they received "are not atypical in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Based on the "undisputed facts of record," the court also concluded that "the process provided to the petitioners to contest and defend against disciplinary sanctions was commensurate with the sanctions imposed on them and, therefore, there was no violation or deprivation of due process."

Tharpe appealed the decision of the Chancery Court.³ Relying on Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), the majority of the Court of Appeals determined that Mr. Tharpe's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the punishment received was not harsh enough to amount to the imposition of "atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Judge Koch dissented, arguing that the majority's reliance on Sandin was misplaced.

Before this Court, Tharpe argues that he is entitled to relief because the disciplinary board acted arbitrarily and illegally by failing to comply with its own procedural rules and thereby denied him his day in court. He also argues that the board deprived him of a property interest that was protected by the Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. The Appellee asks us to uphold the decision of the trial court and its reliance on Sandin v. Conner.

We agree with Tharpe that his petition did state a claim for relief under the common-law writ of certiorari. However, we also conclude that his petition did not state a claim for deprivation of due process under either the federal or state constitutions. Therefore, for the reasons contained herein, the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

The sole purpose of a Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 12.02(6) motion to dismiss is to test the sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff's evidence. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn.1999); Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Tenn.1997). When reviewing a dismissal of a complaint under Rule 12.02(6), this Court must take the factual allegations contained in the complaint as true and review the trial court's legal conclusions de novo without giving any presumption of correctness to those conclusions. See, e.g., Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d at 922. Because a motion to dismiss a complaint under Rule 12.02(6) challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, courts should grant a motion to dismiss only when it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. See, e.g., Trau-Med of Am., Inc. v. Allstate Ins. Co., 71 S.W.3d 691, 696 (Tenn.2002).

DISCUSSION

DUE PROCESS

In his petition for common-law writ of certiorari, Tharpe alleged that the prison disciplinary board failed to follow the rules in the Uniform Disciplinary Procedures, and, as a result, his conviction for attempted escape was illegal and arbitrary. Instead of allowing Tharpe relief under the common-law writ of certiorari, the Court of Appeals determined that Tharpe had failed to state a claim for violation of his due process rights under the United States Constitution and the Tennessee Constitution. The Court of Appeals relied upon Sandin v. Conner to hold that Mr. Tharpe's petition failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because the punishment he received was not harsh enough to amount to the imposition of "atypical and significant hardship ... in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293.

The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1.⁴ Consequently, a claim of denial of due process must be analyzed with a two-part inquiry: (1) whether the interest involved can be defined as "life," "liberty" or "property" within the meaning of the Due Process Clause; and if so (2) what process is due in the circumstances. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Rowe v. Bd. of Educ., 938 S.W.2d 351, 354 (Tenn.1996). Deprivation of an interest which is neither liberty nor property does not trigger the procedural safeguards of the Due Process Clause. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293; Rowe, 938 S.W.2d at 354.

The United States Supreme Court has addressed, on several occasions, the issue of when a prisoner is deemed to have been deprived of a liberty interest. In Sandin, the Court held that a liberty interest is not created unless the disciplinary restraints being imposed on a prisoner are atypical in comparison to the "ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293. In that case, the Court held that thirty days of punitive segregation was not a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of the prisoner's indeterminate sentence, and therefore, the prisoner was not entitled to due process protection. Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486, 115 S.Ct. 2293.

Thus, pursuant to Sandin, we find that Tharpe was not deprived of a liberty interest when he was punished with punitive and administrative segregation. However, Tharpe argues that Sandin does not control the outcome of this case because unlike the prisoner in Sandin, he was not only punished with segregation, but was also assessed a monetary fine of five dollars.

State prisoners in Tennessee have a property interest in the funds in their prison trust fund accounts. Jeffries v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 108...