Rhoden v. State Dep't of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
Rhoden v. State Dep't of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
74 citation events (70 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Jason Hale v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd., No. M2020-00724-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2020)
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999 2012 2026
How cited ↗
Cited for
At page 956 Challenging disciplinary actions through writ of certiorari56 citing casesThe proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari. . . .5 citing courts put it this way
  • Jason Hale v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd., No. M2020-00724-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2020).published
    (The proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari. . . .)
  • Romalis Gray v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. E2012-00425-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2013).published 2 cites
    (A prisoner disciplinary proceeding cannot be reviewed directly under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act because the Act removes such proceedings from the definition of a contested case.)
  • John Lindberg v. TCIX Disciplinary Bd., No. M2024-00326-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 15, 2025).published
    This Court has previously explained the relevant standard of review as follows: “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards,…
  • Howse v. Perry, Warden, No. 3:22-cv-00105 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 7, 2022).
    A petition for a common law writ of certiorari “must be filed within sixty days of the challenged action.” Braden v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., No. M2010-01645-COA-R3CV, 2011 WL 1816722 , at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2011) (footnote omitted)…
  • Dexter Lee Williams v. Tennessee Dep't Of Corr., No. M2018-01375-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 1, 2019).published
    See Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2003); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • J.Y. Sepulveda v. Tennessee Bd. of Parole, 582 S.W.3d 270 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018).published
    Brown v. Little, No. M2008- 02644-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2166061, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2009), perm. app. denied [(Tenn. Jan. 25, 2010)] (citing Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).
  • Carter Burgess v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd., No. M2016-01896-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).published
    See Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2003); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • Jeffery Walton v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2015-01336-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 23, 2016).published
    See Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2003); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • Damien C. Darden v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2015-01595-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 11, 2016).published
    Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003) (citing Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)).
  • William L. Jenkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2014-02210-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 29, 2016).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Powell v. Parole Eligibility Re.
Show 46 more citing cases
  • Guyoka Bonner v. Sgt. Cagle, No. W2015-01609-COA-R3-CV, 2016 WL 97648 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 7, 2016).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Rodney Glover v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2014-02186-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 9, 2015).published
    See Willis v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 113 S.W. 3d 706, 710 (Tenn. 2003); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W. 2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • Ronald Terry v. Tennessee Dept. of Corr., No. M2013-02206-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 25, 2014).published
    “[t]he proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari”
  • Walter Himes v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2011-02546-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Dec. 6, 2012).published
    Standard of Review As this Court recently explained in Schaffer v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., No. M2010- 01742-COA-R3-CV, 2011 WL 1842971 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2011): “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle…
  • Joshua Hilliard v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd., No. M2011-02213-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 19, 2012).published
    Common Law Writ of Certiorari “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and other simila…
  • Orlando Ladd v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd., No. M2011-02599-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 27, 2012).published
    Bonner v. Dep’t of Correction, 84 S.W.3d 576, 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Correction, 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Andrew J. Braden, III v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2010-01958-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 23, 2011).published
    The standard of review in an appeal from the decision of a prison disciplinary board has been articulated by this Court: “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of…
  • Harold B. Schaffer v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2010-01742-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2011).published
    S TANDARD OF R EVIEW “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and other similar adminis…
  • Andrew J. Braden, III v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2010-01645-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2011).published
    “The proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, and the petition must be filed within sixty days of the challenged action”
  • Danny E. Rogers v. Steven Payne, No. E2010-00523-COA-R3-CV, 2010 WL 4272745 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 28, 2010).published
    S TANDARD OF R EVIEW “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and other similar adminis…
  • Victor L. Dobbins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2010-00009-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 25, 2010).published
    “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and other similar administrative tribunals.” J…
  • Linnell Richmond v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2009-01276-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2010).published
    Brown v. Little, No. M2008-02644-COA-R3-CV, 2009 WL 2166061, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 20, 2009), perm. app. denied Jan. 25, 2010 (citing Rhoden v. State 5 (...continued) T.C.A. § 27-9-102 (2000). -4- Dep't of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (…
  • Jeremy White v. Comm'r Gayle Ray, No. W2009-01766-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 29, 2010).published
    Standard of Review This Court has explained the standard of review in an appeal from the decision of a prison disciplinary board thus: “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may s…
  • Charles Patterson v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2009-01733-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 20, 2010).published
    S TANDARD OF R EVIEW “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and other similar adminis…
  • Brown v. Little, 341 S.W.3d 275 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2009).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998).
  • Carl Ross v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2008-00422-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2008).published
    STANDARD OF REVIEW “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility review boards, and other similar administr…
  • Cory O. Johnson v. Ross Bates, Warden, WTSP Disciplinary Bd., No. W2007-02293-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2008).published
    Bonner v. Tenn. Dep’t of Corr., 84 S.W.3d 576, 582 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Keenan R. Keen v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2007-00632-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2008).published
    Willis v. Tenn. Dep't of Correction, 113 S.W.3d 706, 712 (Tenn. 2003); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Correction, 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Clark v. Rose, 183 S.W.3d 669 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005).published
    “[t]he proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari”
  • John E. Allen v. Quenton T. White, No. W2004-00457-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 23, 2004).published
    “The common-law writ of certiorari serves as the proper procedural vehicle through which prisoners may seek review of decisions by prison disciplinary boards, parole eligibility boards, and other similar administrative tribunals.” Willis,…
  • James Clark v. Jim Rose, No. W2002-01245-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 31, 2002).published 2 cites
    “[t]he proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari”
  • Eric Woodruff v. TDOC, No. M2001-00494-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2002).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)) (holding that the proper procedural vehicle for a prisoner seeking review of a disciplinary action of…
  • Larry Williams v. TDOC, No. M2000-02905-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 28, 2002).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t. of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)) (The proper procedural vehicle for a prisoner seeking review of a disciplinary action of the Departm…
  • Hawkins v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 127 S.W.3d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002).published
    (no Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application filed)
  • Calvin Tankesly v. Sgt. Pugh, No. M2000-01520-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 27, 2002).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t. of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • Paul Ivy v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2001-01219-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2002).published
    App . 200 1); Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Tony Makoka v. Howard Cook, No. M2001-01013-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 22, 2002).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tenn. Crim.
  • El-Shabazz Ahkeen v. Donal Campbell, No. M2000-02411-COA-R3-CV, 2001 WL 1346250 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 2, 2001).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t. of Correction, 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Cr.
  • Robinson v. Clement, 65 S.W.3d 632 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2001).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998); Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294, 296 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994). 2 .
  • Tony Willis v. Dept of Corr., No. M2000-01397-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2001).published
    Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1994)).
  • Perry v. TN Bd. of Paroles, No. M1998-01018-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 22, 2001).published
    Rhoden v. Department of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • John Seals v. James Bowlen, Warden, No. M1999-00997-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 1999).published
    Of Correction, 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Cr.
  • Elgain Ricky Wilson v. Shane Adcock, No. W2017-00901-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 26, 2018).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Bryan R. Hanley v. Turney Ctr. Disciplinary Bd., No. M2016-01223-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 30, 2016).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • Vincent Garrard v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. M2013-01525-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 8, 2014).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App.1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn. Crim.
  • Orlando Fields v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. M2011-01344-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 987337 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr. 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) (emphasis added).
  • Settle v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 276 S.W.3d 420 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2008).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dep’t of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994)).
  • Melvin Perry v. Bruce Westbrooks, No. W2006-02747-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 7, 2007).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dep't of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn.Ct.App.1998) (citing Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn.Crim.App.1994)).
  • Alvin King v. Shelby Cnty. Gov't Civil Serv. Merit Bd., No. W2006-01079-COA-R3-CV, 2006 WL 2506718 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 31, 2006).published
    See Rhoden v. State Dept. of Corr., 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • Herman Phillips v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2005-02187-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 28, 2006).published
    See Rhoden v. TDOC, 984 S.W.2d 955, 956 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998).
  • James C. Breer v. Quenton White, No. W2005-00702-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 23, 2005).published
  • Shannon D. Young v. Tony Parker, No. W2004-02329-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 31, 2005).published
  • Thomas Jackson v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., No. W2005-02240-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. June 8, 2004).published
  • Tony Willis v. Dept of Corr., No. M2000-01397-SC-R11-CV (Tenn. Aug. 27, 2003).published
  • Mario Haywood v. Dept. of Corr., No. M1999-02282-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 12, 2000).published
  • Willis v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 113 S.W.3d 706 (Tenn. 2003).published
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Lawtis Donald RHODEN, Petitioner/Appellant,
v.
STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Respondent/Appellee
Court of Appeals of Tennessee.
Oct 14, 1998.
Published opinion
984 S.W.2d 955
1998 Tenn. App. LEXIS 686
Gary L. Anderson, University of Tennessee Legal Clinic, Knoxville, Tennessee, Attorney for Petitioner/Appellant., John Knox Walkup, Attorney General and Reporter, John R. Miles, Attorney General and Reporter, North Nashville, Tennessee, Attorney for Respondent/Appellee.
Cantrell, Todd, Middle, Koch.
Cited by 64 opinions  |  Published

[*956] OPINION

CANTRELL, Judge.

An inmate in the correction department sought a declaratory judgment concerning his sentence credits. The Chancery Court of Davidson County dismissed the petition (1) because the proper avenue for relief was a writ of certiorari to challenge the disciplinary action that caused the loss of his sentence credits, and (2) because the failure to give him sentence credits while he was under a California detainer did not violate his equal protection rights. We affirm. [1]

I.

Lawtis Donald Rhoden received a twenty year sentence for rape in 1985. In August of 1995, while Mr. Rhoden was an inmate at the Turney Center, correction officers confiscated seven pamphlets which he had received through the mail from an organization advocating racial purity. Mr. Rhoden alleges that the written material does not advocate violence or other illegal activity and is not so racially inflammatory that it would likely cause violence within the prison.

The Turney Center Disciplinary Board found Mr. Rhoden guilty of possessing the literature, sentenced him to ten days in punitive segregation and recommended his placement in administrative segregation, maximum security status. Following the Department’s appeal procedures, the prison warden approved the Board’s recommendation and the Commissioner of Correction signed off on the punishment on September 6, 1995.

"While in maximum security Mr. Rhoden could not earn the sixteen days credit he had been earning each month. In February of 1996 and April of 1997, Mr. Rhoden’s security status was reduced in steps back to minimum security, but he lost sentence credits in each step by not being able to earn the maximum credits available if he had been in minimum security. He alleges that in all he lost seven months of credits for the possession of constitutionally protected materials.

In the meantime, in August of 1996, Mr. Rhoden filed a petition for a declaratory order with the Department of Correction seeking a return of the sentence credits lost as a result of the disciplinary proceeding. The Department denied the petition in a letter dated August 27,1996.

On October 25, 1996, Mr. Rhoden filed a petition for review in the Chancery Court of Davidson County challenging the loss of his sentence credits. The petition recited that it was filed pursuant to Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-322. [2] The Department of Correction filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the petition failed to state a cause of action. The court dismissed the petition because it was essentially an action challenging the results of the disciplinary proceeding and a review of that proceeding should have been sought within sixty days by a petition for the common law writ of certio-rari.

II.

A prisoner disciplinary proceeding cannot be reviewed directly under the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act because the Act removes such proceedings from the definition of a contested case. Tenn.Code Ann. § 4 — 5—106(b). The proper vehicle for challenging a disciplinary action is a petition for a common law writ of certiorari, and the petition must be filed within sixty days of the challenged action. Bishop v. Conley, 894 S.W.2d 294 (Tenn.Cr.App.1994). See Tenn. Code Ann. § 27-9-102.

Mr. Rhoden alleges, however, that he is not seeking a review of the disciplinary pro[*957] ceedings. Instead he “is attacking the unlawful actions of the T.D.O.C.; and the Commissioner of the T.D.O.C. in punishing him for mere possession of constitutionally protected literature.” We fail to see the distinction. But giving him the benefit of the doubt, the proper procedure for attacking a rule of the Department is set out in Tenn. Code Ann. § 4-5-223.

Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-223(a) of the UAPA allows any person affected by a state statute or an order or rule of a state agency to petition the agency for a declaratory order as to the validity or applicability of the rule, statute, or order. The agency can then (1) convene a contested case hearing and issue the declaratory order, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5 — 323(a)(1), or (2) refuse to issue the order, Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-223(a)(2). In cases where the agency refuses to issue the declaratory order, the affected person may seek a declaratory judgment in the Chancery Court of Davidson County. Tenn.Code Ann. § 4r- 5-224(a).

Mr. Rhoden’s petition does not state a claim for a declaratory judgment under the UAPA. He is not challenging a statute or an agency rule or order — except the order resulting from the disciplinary proceeding. In effect he is challenging the factual conclusion arrived at during the disciplinary proceeding that the literature found in his possession violated the Department’s rules. That determination should have been reviewed by a direct review of the disciplinary proceeding.

This case can be distinguished from Gilbreth v. Bradley, 01-A-01-9402-CH-00083, 1994 WL 514163 (Nashville, September 21, 1994), in which the inmate did seek a declaratory judgment concerning the application of a statute to inmates sentenced under prior law. The issue in Gilbreth was not whether the prisoner should have been disciplined but whether the punishment imposed by the Department exceeded its authority under the statute in question.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed and the cause is remanded to the Chancery Court of Davidson County for any further proceedings necessary. Tax the costs on appeal to the appellant.

HENRY F. TODD, Presiding Judge, Middle Section, WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., Judge, concur.
1

. The question of the effect of the California detainer on the petitioner’s rights was not argued on appeal, so we do not deal with it in this opinion.

2

. Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-322 provides for a review of a contested case. A petition for a declaratory judgment, after an agency has refused a declaratory order, is authorized by Tenn.Code Ann. § 4-5-225. For this reason alone the petitioner failed to state a cause of action.