Sean Goble v. State of Tennessee
E2015-01824-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- In July 2014 TDOC removed small electric "hotpots" from the list of approved inmate personal property; the NECX warden ordered hotpots mailed out by July 30 or disposed as contraband.
- Sean Goble (inmate) filed an administrative claim seeking $26.95 under the Takings Clauses of the U.S. and Tennessee Constitutions for the loss of his hotpot; the Division denied the claim and Goble appealed to the Claims Commission.
- The State moved to dismiss, arguing the Claims Commission lacks jurisdiction over takings of personal property because Tenn. Code Ann. § 9-8-307(a)(1)(V) limits ‘‘private property’’ to real property or improvements as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 12-1-202(2).
- Goble responded invoking Horne v. Department of Agriculture (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2015), arguing the statutory definition is unconstitutional because the Takings Clause protects personal property and therefore the Claims Commission must have jurisdiction.
- The Claims Commissioner dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and declined to adjudicate the facial constitutional challenge to the statutory definition; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Claims Commission had authority to decide Goble's facial constitutional challenge to § 12-1-202(2) | Goble: § 12-1-202(2) is facially unconstitutional post-Horne and should be elided from § 9-8-307(a)(1)(V), giving the Commission jurisdiction over personal-property takings | State: The Commission lacks authority to decide a facial constitutional challenge and the statute unambiguously limits Commission jurisdiction to real property | Court: Administrative agency lacks authority to decide a facial challenge; judiciary reserved that power; Commissioner properly declined to rule on facial validity |
| Whether the doctrine of elision could be used to remove the reference to § 12-1-202(2) from § 9-8-307(a)(1)(V) | Goble: If elided, subsection (V) would cover personal property takings and allow his claim | State: Elision is improper because legislature intended the limitation; removing the clause would rewrite/expand the statute beyond legislative intent | Court: Elision improper here; legislature would not have enacted (V) without the clause; removing it would require striking (V) entirely, which would not help Goble |
| Whether, assuming elision, Goble suffered a compensable taking | Goble: TDOC’s removal of hotpots was a physical taking requiring compensation under Horne | State: Incarceration limits possession rights; TDOC allowed ownership/control (mail out, storage, pick-up) so no compensable taking occurred | Court: No taking — prisoners retain ownership/control rights even if possession is restricted; policy allowed mailing/storage so no compensable taking occurred |
| Whether Horne requires a different result for Claims Commission jurisdiction | Goble: Horne extends Takings protection to personal property, so Tennessee statute is inconsistent | State: Even if Horne recognizes personal-property takings, statutory jurisdictional limit stands and procedural remedies matter | Court: Horne does not change that (a) the Commission cannot decide facial challenges, and (b) even under Horne Goble would not have a compensable taking here |
Key Cases Cited
- Horne v. Dep’t of Agric., 135 S. Ct. 2419 (2015) (SCOTUS held physical takings can involve personal property and require just compensation)
- McCarthy v. Madigan, 503 U.S. 140 (1992) (limits on agency authority to grant certain relief; agencies may lack power to decide constitutional claims)
- Colonial Pipeline Co. v. Morgan, 263 S.W.3d 827 (Tenn. 2008) (administrative agencies cannot determine facial validity of statutes due to separation of powers)
- State v. Crank, 468 S.W.3d 15 (Tenn. 2015) (courts should avoid striking or rewriting statutes unless necessary; elision doctrine narrowly applied)
- Duck River Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Manchester, 529 S.W.2d 202 (Tenn. 1975) (Tennessee Takings Clause applies to personal property)
- Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (incarceration necessarily curtails certain rights, including possession of property)
- U.S. v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739 (1987) (standard for facial constitutional challenges)