Stanley Finney v. Tennessee Dept. of Correction

Citation: Not availableDocket: E2009-01111-COA-R3-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; May 4, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Stanley Finney, a prisoner, filed a Common Law Writ of Certiorari in the Chancery Court, claiming he was wrongfully disciplined for allegedly displaying a gang sign while incarcerated at Brushy Mountain State Penitentiary. He contended that he was actually making a peace sign to another inmate and was not affiliated with any gang. Finney asserted that his advisor submitted a witness request as required by Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) policy, yet the hearing officer rejected it. During the hearing, Finney requested his witness testify, but the board denied this, claiming they could read the written statement. Finney was found guilty, fined $5, and lost 16 sentence reduction credits. 

The respondents, the Tennessee Department of Correction, initially did not oppose the granting of the writ but later filed a Motion for Judgment on the Record, asserting the board acted properly and that sufficient evidence supported the violation. The trial court dismissed Finney's writ, stating the board had enough evidence and did not violate TDOC policy by not calling the witness, as no request form was in the record.

On appeal, Finney argued that his allegations should be accepted as true under the Rules of Civil Procedure, which could establish a valid cause of action. The appellate court vacated the trial court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, highlighting that the factual assertions in Finney's petition warranted further examination.

Petitioner contends that the Trial Court incorrectly granted respondents' Motion for Judgment on the pleadings, as permitted under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.03, which allows such motions post-pleading but not delaying trial. This type of motion effectively acts as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a viable claim, admitting the truth of all material allegations while asserting they do not constitute a legal cause of action. The court must accept all well-pleaded facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the opposing party, and its legal determinations are reviewed de novo.

Petitioner claims that his inmate advisor submitted a witness request form to Sgt. Larry Ward before a disciplinary hearing, which contained expected testimony from witness Perley Winkler. Ward allegedly acknowledged the form but refused to allow Winkler to testify during the hearing, stating they could read the form instead. Petitioner argues this refusal prejudiced his appeals, as the evidence was not considered.

Both parties agree that judicial review under a common law writ of certiorari is limited to whether the disciplinary board acted outside its jurisdiction or in an illegal, arbitrary, or fraudulent manner—not the correctness of the decision itself. For a review to proceed, the petitioner must demonstrate that a deviation from Tennessee Department of Correction (TDOC) policy occurred and that it resulted in substantial prejudice. The Uniform Disciplinary Procedures are designed to ensure fairness in disciplinary proceedings; any significant violation of these procedures, leading to unreliable determinations of guilt, would be considered an abuse of discretion.

TDOC policy allows inmates to present relevant witness testimony unless it threatens institutional safety. The petition presents a valid cause of action regarding the alleged violations of TDOC procedures and the resultant prejudice to the petitioner.

Inmate policy requires that a witness request form be submitted to the hearing officer at least 24 hours before a hearing, with the officer required to indicate approval or denial and provide reasons for any denial. Even if a request is not submitted on time, the hearing officer may still permit witness testimony. The petitioner claimed he submitted the form the day before the hearing, but the hearing officer returned it without indicating approval or denial or providing reasons for any denial. The petitioner made a second request for his witness to testify during the hearing, which was also denied without proper documentation. The respondents contended that the administrative record did not show submission of the request form, but this did not negate the petitioner's claims. Under the standard for a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must accept the petitioner's well-pleaded facts as true. Consequently, it was determined that TDOC policy was not followed, depriving the petitioner of his right to present witness testimony, which could have impacted the outcome of his case. The petitioner was also denied the opportunity to submit a written statement to preserve the witness's testimony for the record. This led to the conclusion that the petitioner was denied a fair hearing and that his rights were violated. The court found that the trial court erred by granting judgment for the respondents and not adequately considering the petitioner's allegations. Therefore, the judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded for further proceedings, with costs of the appeal assessed to the respondents.