James LaFayette Moore v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board
Docket: M2009-01056-COA-R3-CV
Court: Court of Appeals of Tennessee; April 7, 2010; Tennessee; State Appellate Court
Original Court Document: View Document
In the case of James Lafayette Moore v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board, the Tennessee Court of Appeals addressed an appeal regarding the dismissal of Moore's petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a disciplinary board's decision. Moore, an inmate, contested his conviction for assault, alleging violations of due process and improper adherence to TDOC policies. The trial court dismissed his petition, citing his failure to disclose previous lawsuits and certain income sources on his affidavit of indigency. Moore attempted to amend his petition before the dismissal, but the court required a prior order for such amendments. He included additional lawsuits in his amended affidavit that had not been deemed frivolous. On appeal, the court found that the trial court erred by not permitting Moore to amend his petition and not conducting a hearing regarding the alleged inaccuracies in his affidavit. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The trial court dismissed Mr. Moore's case based solely on his failure to disclose all prior lawsuits per Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805. Although Mr. Moore attempted to amend his affidavit before the dismissal, the court did not consider these amendments. The statute mandates that inmates provide a complete list of all prior lawsuits regardless of their incarceration status, and failing to comply can lead to dismissal without prejudice for petitions filed in forma pauperis. The clerk and master refused to file Mr. Moore's amended affidavit, citing procedural requirements since an answer had not yet been filed. However, under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 15.01, Mr. Moore was permitted to amend his pleadings before a responsive pleading was served. As the defendants had not filed an answer at the time of the amendments, Mr. Moore's petition should have been treated as amended. The trial court's oversight in not considering the amendments was deemed significant. The court vacated the dismissal order and remanded the case for further proceedings, placing the costs of appeal on the appellees.