Ralph Thompson v. State of Tennessee
E2015-01845-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- TDOC updated its approved personal-property list in July 2014 to exclude small electric heating devices (“hotpots”); a warden memo required inmates to mail them out or have them disposed as contraband after July 30, 2014.
- Ralph Thompson, an inmate, filed an administrative claim seeking $26.95 for his hotpot as an uncompensated taking under the U.S. and Tennessee Takings Clauses; the claim was denied and he appealed to the Tennessee Claims Commission.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing the Claims Commission lacks jurisdiction over takings claims that concern only personal property because Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(V) limits “private property” to real property per § 12-1-202(2).
- Thompson relied on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Horne (holding takings can include physical takings of personal property) to argue the statutory definition is unconstitutional and should be elided so the Commission could hear his claim.
- The Commissioner dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to rule on the facial constitutionality of the statute; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the Claims Commission lacked authority to decide a facial constitutional challenge, (2) elision would not give the Commission jurisdiction and (3) no compensable taking occurred because Thompson retained ownership/control options (e.g., mailing the hotpot out).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Claims Commission have jurisdiction over a takings claim for personal property? | Thompson: Horne controls; the Commission should hear takings of personal property. | State: §9-8-307(V) incorporates §12-1-202 limiting “private property” to real property, so Commission lacks jurisdiction. | Held: Commission lacks jurisdiction; statutory reference confines jurisdiction to real property. |
| May the Claims Commission adjudicate a facial constitutional challenge to §12-1-202(2)? | Thompson: The statute is facially unconstitutional and should be elided. | State: Agency lacks authority to decide facial constitutionality; separation of powers forbids it. | Held: Commissioner correctly declined to decide the facial challenge—agency lacks power to declare a statute facially invalid. |
| Would judicial elision of the §12-1-202 reference give the Commission jurisdiction? | Thompson: Elide the clause to restore Commission jurisdiction over personal-property takings. | State: Elision would rewrite/expand statute beyond legislative intent and implicate the legislature’s control over waiving sovereign immunity. | Held: Elision is improper here; legislature would not have enacted subsection (V) without the clause, and removing it would either rewrite the statute or require eliminating (V) entirely, which would not help Thompson. |
| Even if jurisdiction existed, did TDOC’s action constitute a compensable taking? | Thompson: Permanent loss of possession of his hotpot is a taking requiring compensation. | State: Incarceration limits possession rights; TDOC allowed inmates to retain ownership and mail property out or have it stored/disposed per policy. | Held: No compensable taking—inmate retained ownership/control options; loss of possession during incarceration is not a taking. |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (physical taking can include personal property)
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008) (administrative agencies lack authority to decide facial validity of statutes)
- Crank v. State, 468 S.W.3d 15 (Tenn. 2015) (limits on using elision; courts should not rewrite statutes)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (incarceration entails curtailment of many rights)
- Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (prison regulations judged with due regard for prison administration)
- Duck River Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Manchester, 529 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1975) (Tennessee Takings Clause applies to personal property)