Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-801 et seq. , the Tennessee Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (the "Act"), was enacted "to counter some of the abuses that arise when inmates exercise their rights to file lawsuits in forma pauperis." Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep't of Correction, 99 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). As noted above, the primary ground for the trial court's grant of summary judgment was that the filing of the lawsuit was in violation of Tennessee Code Annotated Section 41-21-812, which provides that:
The Act "was enacted to counter some of the abuses that arise when inmates exercise their rights to file lawsuits in forma pauperis." Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 99 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) ("Among other things, the legislation was designed to reduce the number of frivolous or malicious lawsuits an inmate can file at taxpayer expense, and to identify and resolve baseless claims at an early stage.") (citing 1996 Pub. Acts, ch. 913, § 1). The statutory language upon which Mr. Gray relies is contained within Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-807, which provides in full:
The statute's bar "applies to validly assessed unpaid costs from all prior cases, not only those found to be malicious or frivolous." Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 99 S.W.3d 112, 115 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). This Court has previously held that a "trial court is authorized to dismiss a lawsuit when it has been erroneously filed by the trial court clerk under section 41-21-812."
We need not decide whether Section 41-21-812 would be applicable if Dotson had originally paid his filing fees in this lawsuit and had not filed an affidavit of indigence. See Sweattv. TDOC, 99 S.W.3d 112, 115 (Tenn.Ct.App. 2002). That is not the situation in the present case.
The statute does not target a divorce complaint that was filed before the statute's enactment, was not frivolous or malicious, and did not burden the State. In Sweatt v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 99 S.W.3d 112, 215 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), the Court of Appeals construed section 41-21-812 to apply to validly assessed unpaid costs from all prior cases, not only those found to be malicious or frivolous. However, in Sweatt, the inmate had filed eight cases determined to be frivolous and owed over $1,200 in costs.
The statute does not target a divorce complaint that was filed before the statute's enactment, was not frivolous or malicious, and did not burden the State. In Sweatt v. Tennessee Department of Correction, 99 S.W.3d 112, 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002), the Court of Appeals construed section 41-21-812 to apply to validly assessed unpaid costs from all prior cases, not only those found to be malicious or frivolous. However, in Sweatt, the inmate had filed eight cases determined to be frivolous and owed over $1,200 in costs.
Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-801(1). Therefore, if an inmate owes court costs from previous cases, Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-812(a) provides that a court clerk may not accept for filing any more lawsuits or appeals by the inmate except those for post-conviction relief. Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 99 S.W.3d 112, 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002). In the present case, Mr. Halliburton asserts that the chancery court should not have dismissed his petition because he paid all outstanding court costs on November 2, 2020, which was prior to the court entering the order of dismissal.
Pursuant to the Tennessee Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated §§ 41-21-801 to -818 (2014 & Supp. 2018), Mr. Sexton filed an affidavit in February 2018 with the trial court in which he provided information regarding any prior lawsuits he had filed. See Fields v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. M2011-01344-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 987337, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012) ("[T]he Tennessee Prisoner Litigation Reform Act was enacted [in 1996] 'to counter some of the abuses that arise when inmates exercise their rights to file lawsuits in forma pauperis.'" (quoting Sweatt v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr., 99 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002))). In compliance specifically with Tennessee Code Annotated § 41-21-805 (2014), Mr. Sexton included in his affidavit that he had previously filed a claim regarding his denial of back pay with the Division of Claims Administration against the State of Tennessee ("the State"), TRICOR, Mr. Baker, and Mr. Edmonson.
The purpose of section 41-21-805 is "to counter some of the abuses that arise when inmates exercise their rights to file lawsuits in forma pauperis." Fields v. Corr. Corp. of Am., No. M2011-01344-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 987337, at *2 (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2012) (quoting Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep't of Correction, 99 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002)). Indeed, "one of the ways in which [section] 41-21-801 et seq. counters the abuses of inmates seeking to proceed in forma pauperis is that it requires inmates to provide an affidavit containing information regarding all previous lawsuits."
THOMAS R. FRIERSON, II, JUDGE Sweatt v. Tennessee Dep't of Corr., 99 S.W.3d 112, 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2002) (quoting Tenn. Code Ann. § 41-21-802).