The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
EASTERN DIVISION
)
IAN J. CAMERON, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
v. ) Case No. 1:22-cv-01228-STA-jay
)
JERRY WARDLOW )
)
Respondent. )
)
ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT TO SUPPLEMENT
STATE COURT RECORD & MOTION TO DISMISS
On October 19, 2022, Petitioner Ian J. Cameron, Tennessee Department of Correction
prisoner number 348064, who is confined at the Hardeman County Correctional Facility in
Whiteville, Tennessee, filed a pro se 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. (ECF No. 1) On preliminary
review, the Court ordered Petitioner to file an amended petition using the district’s official form.
(ECF No. 16.) Petitioner filed his amended § 2254 petition on March 22, 2023. (ECF No. 18).
The Court dismissed Petitioner’s claim challenging his security classification because
“a prisoner does not have a constitutional right to be placed in a specific security classification.”
Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571, 576 (6th Cir. 2005). The Court then ordered Respondent
Warden Jerry Wardlow to file a response addressing the remaining claims in the amended § 2254
petition. (ECF No. 20 at PageID 167-68.)
On January 8, 2024, Respondent filed the state court record and a motion to dismiss.
(ECF Nos. 25 & 26.) Respondent argues that Petitioner’s remaining claims are either unexhausted
or procedurally barred and should be dismissed. (ECF No. 26-1 at PageID 261.) For the reasons
that follow, the Court ORDERS Respondent to supplement the state court record with documents
related to the proceedings in the Davidson County Circuit Court, Case No. 23-C-324, and to
supplement the motion to dismiss.
Respondent argues that, with respect to Petitioner’s claims challenging his prison
disciplinary proceedings, he has not exhausted his state court remedies. (ECF No. 26-1 at
PageID 262.) The common law writ of certiorari is the procedural vehicle through which
Tennessee prisoners may petition for review of decisions by parole eligibility review boards,
prison disciplinary boards, and similar administrative boards and tribunals. Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t
of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003). The deadline for filing a petition is 60 days from the
entry of the order or judgment for which review is sought or, if a timely administrative appeal is
pursued, within 60 days of entry of the final decision from the administrative appeal. Tenn. Code.
Ann. § 27-9-102.
Petitioner filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Davidson County Circuit Court on
February 13, 2023. (ECF No. 25-4 at PageID 233-42.) The petition was still pending when
Respondent filed the motion to dismiss. (See ECF No. 26-1 at PageID 262.) Accordingly,
Respondent argued that Petitioner’s claims related to the prison disciplinary proceedings should
be dismissed without prejudice because Petitioner had not completed the three-tiered state court
review process. (Id.)
The Davidson County Circuit Court has since dismissed the petition, and the case was
closed on March 4, 2024. See Davidson County Circuit Court, Case Search, Cameron v. Vantel,
No. 23-C-324 (last accessed Apr. 23, 2024). Therefore, the Court ORDERS Respondent to
supplement the state court record with the complete proceedings from the Davidson County Circuit
Court in Case No. 23-C-324 as well as the records of any other relevant pending state court
proceedings within 28 days of the entry of this Order. The filing shall be organized and
appropriately indexed, as required by Administrative Order 16-31. Respondent is further
ORDERED to supplement the motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) and address the Davidson County
Circuit Court’s dismissal of the petition for writ of certiorari in Case No. 23-C-324 as well as any
other relevant pending state court proceedings no later than 28 days from the entry of this order.
Petitioner shall have 28 days from the filing of Respondent’s supplement to the motion to
dismiss to file a response. Petitioner may request an extension of time to respond if his motion is
filed on or before the due date of his response. The Court will address the merits of Respondent’s
motion to dismiss, as supplemented, after the expiration of Petitioner’s time to respond, as
extended.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ S. Thomas Anderson
S. THOMAS ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Date: April 23, 2024