Opinion

Calvin Tankesly v. Sgt. Pugh

Court
Court of Appeals of Tennessee
Filed
Mar 18, 2002
Status
Published
On the bench
Presiding Judge Patricia J. Cottrell
Cited by
0 cases
Authority
More cited than 29.9%

No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed

How later courts described this case

  • No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

March 18, 2002 Session

CALVIN TANKESLY v. SGT. PUGH, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 00-135-III Ellen Hobbs Lyle, Chancellor

No. M2000-01520-COA-R3-CV - Filed June 27, 2002

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., dissenting.

While I do not necessarily disagree with the substantive conclusions in the majority’s

opinion, I have prepared this dissent because neither the trial court nor this court should have

addressed the merits of Mr. Tankesly’s petition. It was filed in the wrong court.

In 1996, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a statute specifically addressing the venue

of lawsuits filed by prisoners seeking review of prison disciplinary proceedings. Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 41-21-803 (1997) states that these actions must “be filed in the county in which the facility is

located.” Even though venue is a personal privilege that can be waived if not raised in a timely

manner, Metropolitan Dev. & Hous. Agency v. Brown Stove Works, Inc., 637 S.W.2d 876, 880

(Tenn. Ct. App.1982), waiver does not apply when a transitory action has been localized by statute.

In that circumstance, venue is intertwined with the trial court’s subject matter jurisdiction which

cannot be conferred by waiver or consent. Curtis v. Garrison, 211 Tenn. 339, 344, 364 S.W.2d 933,

935 (1963); Terminix Int’l Co. v. Tapley, No. 02A01-9701-CH-00028, 1997 WL 437222, at *5

(Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 4, 1997) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 application filed). Accordingly, we have

previously dismissed lawsuits filed by prisoners when they have been filed in the wrong county.

Howse v. Campbell, No. M1999-01580-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 459106, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. May

2, 2001) (No Tenn. R. App. P. 11 filed).

Appellate courts must take up issues of subject matter jurisdiction even when they have not

been raised by the parties. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(b). Mr. Tankesly was incarcerated at the

Southeastern Tennessee Regional Correctional Facility in Pikeville when he was disciplined.

Therefore, Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-803 required him to file his petition in Bledsoe County, not

Davidson County. Even though the Attorney General and Reporter has not invoked Tenn. Code

Ann. § 41-21-803, we must. This complaint should have been summarily dismissed.

_____________________________

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., JUDGE

-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.