Willie Johnson v. Turney Center Disciplinary Board
M2016-00424-COA-R3-CV
| Tenn. Ct. App. | Sep 30, 2016Background
- Willie Johnson, a Tennessee inmate, filed a common law writ of certiorari in Hickman County Chancery Court seeking review of a Turney Center disciplinary conviction.
- Johnson did not include a certified copy of his inmate trust account with his indigency affidavit when he filed the petition; he obtained the trust-account record on Sept. 21, 2015 but did not file it until November 20, 2015 (after dismissal).
- Respondents moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction based on Johnson’s failure to comply with statutory filing requirements (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 27-9-102, 41-21-805, 41-21-807).
- The trial court granted the motion to dismiss on Nov. 3, 2015, concluding Johnson failed to file required documents within statutory limits and failed to comply with inmate filing statutes; the court denied Johnson’s motion to alter or amend.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeals reviewed subject matter jurisdiction de novo and affirmed dismissal, holding Johnson’s failure to file the certified trust account as required by the inmate-affidavit statutes warranted dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court had subject matter jurisdiction to review the certiorari petition given statutory filing rules | Johnson argued his petition was timely under the inmate mailbox rule and that delay in receiving certified records excused noncompliance | Respondents argued statutory requirements (including certified trust account) were mandatory for inmates proceeding in forma pauperis and Johnson failed to comply | Court held lack of required certified trust account deprived court of jurisdiction to hear petition; dismissal affirmed |
| Whether Johnson was entitled to 30 days to respond to the motion to dismiss | Johnson claimed he was not given 30 days to answer and that the mailbox rule made his filing timely | Respondents contended no 30-day answer period applied to motions to dismiss and mailbox rule protects filings mailed by officials, not delays in requesting documents | Court held Johnson was not entitled to a 30-day answer period; mailbox rule did not excuse his failure to timely obtain and file required documents |
Key Cases Cited
- Meighan v. U.S. Sprint Commc’ns Co., 924 S.W.2d 632 (Tenn. 1996) (defines subject matter jurisdiction and its limits)
- Talley v. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility, 358 S.W.3d 185 (Tenn. 2011) (subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by waiver)
- Chapman v. DaVita, Inc., 380 S.W.3d 710 (Tenn. 2012) (de novo review of jurisdictional questions)
- Spates v. Howell, 420 S.W.3d 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2013) (general rules re: filing fees and indigency in Tennessee civil actions)
- Williams v. Bell, 37 S.W.3d 477 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (failure to comply with inmate-affidavit statutes may warrant dismissal)