Opinion

Marvin Martin v. Members and Chairman of Board of Probation and Parole

Court
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Feb 8, 2005
Status
Published
On the bench
Presiding Judge William C. Koch, Jr.
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.5%

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs January 12, 2004

MARVIN MARTIN v. MEMBERS AND CHAIRMAN OF BOARD OF

PROBATION AND PAROLE

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 02-3695-I Irvin Kilcrease, Chancellor

No. M2003-00790-COA-R3-CV - Filed February 8, 2005

This appeal involves a prisoner’s concerns about overcrowding at the correctional facility in which

he is incarcerated. The prisoner filed a petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery

Court for Davidson County seeking an order compelling the Tennessee Board of Probation and

Parole to advance his release eligibility date. The trial court granted the Board’s Tenn. R. Civ. P.

12.02(6) motion to dismiss, and the prisoner appealed. We vacate the judgment and remand the case

with directions to dismiss the petition because it was filed in the wrong county.

Tenn. R. App. P. 3 Appeal as of Right; Judgment of the Chancery Court Vacated

WILLIAM C. KOCH , JR., P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM B. CAIN and

PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, JJ., joined.

Marvin Martin, Clifton, Tennessee, Pro Se.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter, and Stephanie R. Reevers, Associate Deputy

Attorney General, for the appellees, Members and Chairman of Board of Probation and Parole.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

On December 10, 2002, Marvin Martin, a prisoner incarcerated in the Wayne County Boot

Camp, filed a pro se petition for common-law writ of certiorari in the Chancery Court for Davidson

County. Mr. Martin was concerned about overcrowding at the facility, and the purpose of his

petition was to obtain an order requiring the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole to invoke the

1

Tenn. Ct. App. R. 10 provides:

The Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or modify

the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no

precedential value. W hen a case is decided by memorandum opinion, it shall be designated

“MEMORANDUM OPINION,” shall not be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any

reason in any unrelated case.

safety valve release provisions in Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 41-1-501 to -510 (2003). The Board filed a

motion to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1), (3), and (6). The trial court granted the motion

on the ground that Mr. Martin had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because

his “petition does not seek review of any particular decision made by the Board in any judicial or

quasi-judicial capacity.” Mr. Martin has appealed.

In the absence of another applicable venue provision, state prisoners must file all lawsuits

involving causes of action that accrue while they are incarcerated in the courts of the county where

the correctional facility in which they are housed is located. Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803 (2003).

This venue provision applies to petitions for writs of common-law certiorari involving the conditions

of incarceration or the conduct of those responsible for the care and custody of the prisoner.

Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep’t of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749, 764-65 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).

The Board specifically relied on Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803 in its Tenn. R. Civ. P.

12.02(3) motion to dismiss. Its reliance on this statute was appropriate because Mr. Martin’s

complaint stems from the conditions of his confinement in Wayne County. Accordingly, the trial

court should have dismissed Mr. Martin’s complaint because it was filed in the wrong county in

accordance with Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803.

We vacate the order dismissing Mr. Martin’s petition for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted, and we remand the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order

dismissing the petition because it was filed in the wrong county. We tax the costs of this appeal to

Marvin Martin for which execution, if necessary, may issue. We also find that Mr. Martin’s petition

for writ of common-law certiorari and subsequent appeal are frivolous in accordance with Tenn.

Code Ann. §§ 41-21-807(c), -816(a)(1) (2003).

______________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., P.J., M.S.

-2-

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.