Daryl K. Burford v. Tennessee Department of Correction
M2020-00575-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Jul 9, 2021Background
- Petitioner Daryl K. Burford, a Tennessee inmate, filed a declaratory-judgment petition alleging TDOC and CoreCivic miscalculated his release-eligibility and sentence-expiration dates (criminal judgment imposed 10 years with 45% release eligibility; TDOC TOMIS showed different dates).
- Burford attached plea/judgment documents, correspondence with TDOC, an inmate affidavit (Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-805), and a certified trust-fund statement (§ 41-21-807); he did not file an affidavit of indigency, pay the required initial partial filing fee ($11.15), or file duplicate copies of petition/summons with the clerk.
- The trial court twice ordered compliance (providing forms, setting deadlines, warning of dismissal); Burford asserted service on some respondents and cited COVID-19 library/lockdown restrictions but did not cure the deficiencies by the second deadline.
- The trial court dismissed the petition for failure to comply with its orders and statutory/rule filing requirements. Burford appealed; this Court held the appeal was premature at one point while a post-judgment motion was pending, but ultimately reviewed the dismissal.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: it concluded dismissal was not an abuse of discretion because Burford failed to pay the partial fee, file an affidavit of indigency, and supply required copies for issuance of summons despite opportunity and statutory mandate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TDOC/ CoreCivic miscalculated Burford’s release/expiration dates | Burford: TDOC/CoreCivic calculated at 65–85% contrary to the criminal court’s 45% order and failed to recalculate despite requests | TDOC/CoreCivic: core merits contested; CoreCivic lacked authority to set release dates; procedural default meant merits not reached | Not decided on the merits — petition dismissed for procedural noncompliance |
| Whether dismissal for failure to comply with court orders/statutes was abuse of discretion | Burford: was pro se, showed some service, cited COVID-19 restrictions, later made some payments; asked court to consider substance over form | Respondents: Burford failed to pay the required initial partial fee, file affidavit of indigency, and provide duplicate pleadings/summons as ordered and required by statute/rules | No abuse of discretion; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether failure to pay initial partial filing fee justified dismissal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 41‑21‑807 | Burford: lacked funds at filing and later payments were made; lockdown impeded timely payment | TDOC: statute requires initial 20% partial payment when funds exist; Burford had prior deposits and had time to pay | Fee-based dismissal proper — trial court acted within discretion |
| Whether appellate brief noncompliance waived review under Tenn. R. App. P. 27 | Burford: pro se, limited library access during COVID; tried to present supporting documents | TDOC: brief lacked required sections and citations | Court exercised discretion to forgive defects and reached the dispositive procedural issue on the merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Baptist Mem'l Hosp., 574 S.W.2d 730 (Tenn. 1978) (trial court may sua sponte dismiss for failure to comply with orders)
- Mfrs. Consol. Serv., Inc. v. Rodell, 42 S.W.3d 846 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (trial courts need severe sanctions to control dockets)
- Hodges v. Tenn. Attorney Gen., 43 S.W.3d 918 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (inherent authority to control docket and dismiss for failure to prosecute)
- Armbrister v. Armbrister, 414 S.W.3d 685 (Tenn. 2013) (abuse-of-discretion standard explained)
- Gonsewski v. Gonsewski, 350 S.W.3d 99 (Tenn. 2011) (clarifies abuse-of-discretion review)
- Amanns v. Grissom, 333 S.W.3d 90 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010) (presumption that trial court decision is correct)
- Spates v. Howell, 420 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (requirements for affidavit of indigency and cost bond)
- Hessmer v. Hessmer, 138 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2003) (pro se litigants not excused from procedural rules)
- Chiozza v. Chiozza, 315 S.W.3d 482 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009) (pro se litigant cannot shift burden of litigation to courts)
- Whitaker v. Whirlpool Corp., 32 S.W.3d 222 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (same)
- Irvin v. City of Clarksville, 767 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1988) (courts should be understanding of pro se difficulties)
- Paehler v. Union Planters Nat'l Bank, 971 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997) (appellate rules construed to afford parties a hearing on the merits)