Jimmy France v. Christine Bradley, Commissioner of Department of Correction, Ned Ray McWherter, Governor of State of Tennessee , 1995 Tenn. App. LEXIS 811 ( 1995 )

JIMMY FRANCE, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Davidson Chancery
) No. 94-3278-III
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9508-CH-00335
CHRISTINE BRADLEY, )
COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTION, NED RAY )
MCWHERTER, GOVERNOR OF STATE )
OF TENNESSEE, CHARLES BURSON, )
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF )
FILED
Dec. 15, 1995
TENNESSEE, AND THE DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTION, ) Cecil Crowson, Jr.
) Appellate Court Clerk
Defendants/Appellees. )
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE
MIDDLE SECTION AT NASHVILLE
APPEAL FROM THE CHANCERY COURT OF DAVIDSON COUNTY
AT NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE
HONORABLE ROBERT S. BRANDT, CHANCELLOR
JIMMY FRANCE
222055 NECC
P.O. Box 5000
Mountain City, Tennessee 37683-5000
PLAINTIFF/APPELLANT/PRO SE
CHARLES W. BURSON
Attorney General and Reporter
EUGENE J. HONEA
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Justice Division
450 James Robertson Parkway
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0493
FOR DEFENDANTS/APPELLEES
AFFIRMED AND REMANDED
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
JIMMY FRANCE, )
)
Plaintiff/Appellant, )
) Davidson Chancery
) No. 94-3278-III
VS. )
) Appeal No.
) 01-A-01-9508-CH-00335
CHRISTINE BRADLEY, )
COMMISSIONER OF DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTION, NED RAY )
MCWHERTER, GOVERNOR OF STATE )
OF TENNESSEE, CHARLES BURSON, )
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF )
TENNESSEE, AND THE DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTION, )
)
Defendants/Appellees. )
OPINION
The captioned plaintiff has appealed from the judgment of the Trial Court dismissing
his suit against the captioned defendants for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief
regarding the constitutionality of application of certain statutes to plaintiff and certain
actions, practices and policies of the defendants.
Plaintiff's brief on appeal presents a single issue in the following form:
Did the lower court err in failing to find a violation of
appellant's rights under the fourteenth amendment to the United
States Constitution and under Article I, Section 8 and Article
XI, Section 8 of the Tennessee Constitution and in dismissing
appellant's petition for declaratory judgment.
The judgment of the Trial Court reads as follows:
In this suit the plaintiff, an inmate in the custody of the
Tennessee Department of Correction, has filed suit claiming a
constitutional right to be allowed to serve his sentence in a
local jail and to receive certain credits. The plaintiff has no
constitutional right to be allowed to serve his sentence at any
particular place and has no constitutional right to sentence
credits. Accordingly, his complaint is dismissed at plaintiff's
costs.
-2-
The introduction to plaintiff's brief on appeal states:
The Chancery Court made a finding that appellant was not
constitutionally guaranteed a right to serve his sentence in any
particular facility and had no constitutional right to receive any
sentence reduction credits. However, this was not the claim
made by appellant. Appellant's claim and the issue before this
Court on appeal, is whether appellant's right of equal protection
of the law is being violated by the unequal treatment in his
ability to earn sentence reduction credits.
The substance of plaintiff's complaint is that a court in Cocke County sentenced him
to six years in the custody of the Department of Correction; that he requested and was denied
the opportunity to serve the sentence in the Cocke County Jail where he could earn eligibility
for sentence reduction by engaging in work programs; that other prisoners were committed to
the Cocke County Jail for more serious offenses, and that they earned eligibility for sentence
reduction.
The complaint states that discriminatory assignment of places of confinement with
differing opportunities for sentence reduction is unconstitutional.
It appears to this Court that plaintiff's demand for equal opportunity for sentence
credits is inextricably included in the assignment to a place of incarceration.
Under the United States Constitution, it has been repeatedly held that a prisoner has
no constitutional right to incarceration in a particular institution. Olim v. Wakinekona, 461
U.S. 238, 103 S. Ct. 1741, 75 L. Ed. 2d 813 (1983); Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 96 S. Ct.
2532, 49 L. Ed. 2d 451 (1976).
Plaintiff cites no authority that the rule is otherwise under the Tennessee Constitution,
and none is found by this Court.
-3-
A prisoner has no constitutional right to receive sentence credits. Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974).
Petitioner cites no statute granting him a substantive right to confinement where
sentence credits may be earned, and none is found by this Court.
It is well known that no two individuals are identical. This is especially true of
persons incarcerated in correctional institutions. Each has a particular history of conduct and
personality. Correction officials must have broad discretion in the assignment of inmates to
available institutions. No right to a particular assignment can be enforced under such
circumstances.
Plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. T.R.C.P.
Rule 12.02(6).
The judgment of the Trial Court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are taxed against the
plaintiff. The cause is remanded to the Trial Court for any necessary further pleadings.
Affirmed and Remanded.
_______________________________________
HENRY F. TODD
PRESIDING JUDGE, MIDDLE SECTION
CONCUR:
_____________________________________
SAMUEL L. LEWIS, JUDGE
_____________________________________
BEN H. CANTRELL, JUDGE
-4-