Eric Best v. Tennessee Department of Correction
M2016-00513-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Appellant Eric Best, a TDOC inmate, was found guilty by a prison Disciplinary Board of possession/use of a cell phone on August 19, 2015.
- Best, acting pro se, filed a petition for a common law writ of certiorari in Davidson County Chancery Court on November 17, 2015, titled "Verified Complaint," notarized, and stating the court should "take the contents of this Petition as being true."
- Appellees moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the petition was not properly "verified" as required by the Tennessee Constitution and Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-8-104(a).
- Best (after retaining counsel) responded that the title, notarization, and prayer that the petition be taken as true satisfied verification.
- The trial court dismissed, concluding precedent required dismissal of unverified certiorari petitions despite the petition's form and notarization.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the petition was not a proper verification under the Constitution and statute and distinguishing notarization (acknowledgement) from verification (swearing to truth of allegations).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a certiorari petition is "verified" where titled "Verified Complaint," notarized, and requests the court to take the petition's contents as true | Best: Title, notary stamp, and prayer that contents be taken as true satisfy verification | TDOC: Petition lacks an oath/affirmation attesting to truth of allegations as required by the Constitution and § 27-8-104(a) | Court: Not sufficient — notarization only acknowledges execution; petition must include an oath/verification swearing to truth; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 240 S.W.3d 241 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2007) (upholding requirement that certiorari petitions be verified; notarization alone insufficient)
- D.T. McCall & Sons v. Seagraves, 796 S.W.2d 457 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1990) (distinguishing acknowledgement/notarization from verification of truth)
- Moses v. Dirghangi, 430 S.W.3d 371 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (substance controls over labels in pleadings; mere captioning as "verified" insufficient)
- Stewart v. Schofield, 268 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2008) (pro se pleadings are afforded less stringent standards but must still comply with substantive rules)
- Louis Dreyfus Corp. v. Austin Co., 868 S.W.2d 649 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993) (affidavits and pleadings that are mere legal conclusions cannot defeat procedural requirements)