Marcus Johnsonv. Tennessee Department of Correction, E2016-02260-COA-R3-CV

Marcus Johnson, a TDOC inmate, challenged the Board of Parole’s revocation of his parole after an August 6, 2015 revocation decision.
Johnson filed a petition for common law writ of certiorari in chancery court on October 15, 2015 seeking reinstatement of parole and alleging unlawful arrest/detention and procedural due‑process defects.
Johnson later filed supplemental exhibits including a December 3, 2015 letter showing his administrative appeal to the Board was denied.
The Department moved to dismiss under Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(1) and (6), arguing Johnson’s certiorari petition was untimely under Tenn. Code Ann. § 27‑9‑102 (60‑day filing limit).
The chancery court granted the Department’s motion; the Court of Appeals reviewed jurisdiction and timeliness and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the chancery court had jurisdiction to hear the certiorari petition	Johnson argued the 60‑day period should run from the Board’s final administrative appeal decision (December 3, 2015)	Dept. argued petition was filed more than 60 days after the August 6, 2015 revocation decision and thus untimely	Court held petition was filed October 15, 2015 — ten days after the 60‑day deadline measured from August 6, so court lacked jurisdiction; petition was also premature while administrative appeal was pending
Whether a premature certiorari petition is procedurally proper	Johnson sought review before administrative appeal concluded	Dept. contended a premature filing does not create jurisdiction and must be dismissed	Court held a premature petition deprives the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and must be dismissed
Applicability of civil timing rules vs. criminal rules for computing time	Johnson cited Tenn. R. Crim. P. 45 for time computation/extension	Dept. noted civil rules govern and criminal rule is inapposite	Court held civil procedure controls; criminal rule 45 does not extend the civil 60‑day statutory deadline

Stewart v. Schofield, 368 S.W.3d 457 (Tenn. 2012) (availability of writ of certiorari to review parole decisions)
Willis v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 113 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2003) (procedures for judicial review of parole board actions)
Thandiwe v. Traughber, 909 S.W.2d 802 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995) (ten‑day/sixty‑day limitation is jurisdictional; late filing deprives court of jurisdiction)
Hickman v. Tennessee Board of Paroles, 78 S.W.3d 285 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001) (sixty‑day statutory time limit for certiorari petitions is mandatory and jurisdictional)
Northland Insurance Co. v. State, 33 S.W.3d 727 (Tenn. 2000) (standards for reviewing subject matter jurisdiction questions)
Redwing v. Catholic Bishop for Diocese of Memphis, 363 S.W.3d 436 (Tenn. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden to show court has jurisdiction)
Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422 (Tenn. 2011) (standard for Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) motions)
Phillips v. Montgomery County, 442 S.W.3d 233 (Tenn. 2014) (de novo review applies to dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Tennessee Central Railroad Co. v. Campbell, 75 S.W. 1012 (Tenn. 1903) (premature petitions deprive courts of jurisdiction)