ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of
Christopher Odom, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since April 9,
1998. On September 22, 1998, Inmate Odom was convicted of Fighting Without A Weapon, SCDC
Disciplinary Code 2.10, after he was involved in an altercation with another inmate on September 11, 1998.
As a result of his conviction, Inmate Odom lost 90 days of good-time credit and was placed on cell restriction
for 30 days.
Inmate Odom filed a grievance with the Department on October 2, 1998, and received the Department's final
decision on December 11, 1998. (1) On June 23, 2000, Inmate Odom filed this appeal. The Department filed
the Record on Appeal on August 7, 2000. Inmate Odom filed his brief on August 24, 2000. The Department
filed its brief on October 6, 2000.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On September 11, 1998, while monitoring the canteen line, Sergeant Pinckney Simmons observed Inmate
Mark Caballero, who was bleeding from his mouth, run past him toward another inmate, Inmate Odom.
Inmate Caballero had several pieces of broken brick in his hand. Sgt. Simmons ordered Inmate Caballero to
stop and to put the bricks down. Inmate Caballero refused, and began throwing the bricks at Inmate Odom.
Sgt. Simmons grabbed both of Inmate Caballero's arms, forcing him to drop the bricks. Sgt. Simmons then
escorted both inmates to medical, where Inmate Caballero was treated for a cut to his bottom lip, and Inmate
Odom was treated for a cut to the back of his head.
When questioned, Inmate Caballero stated that he and Inmate Odom had gotten into an argument. According
to Inmate Caballero, Inmate Odom then struck him in the mouth, provoking Inmate Caballero to attempt to
throw pieces of brick at Inmate Odom. Inmate Odom denied striking Inmate Caballero. However, Sgt.
Simmons noted that Inmate Odom had blood stains on his uniform. Subsequently, Inmate Odom was notified
in writing of his placement in Pre-Hearing Detention ("PHD"), where he remained until September 21, 1998.
After the incident, Sgt. Simmons completed a Disciplinary Offense Report, in which he charged Inmate
Odom with Fighting Without A Weapon, SCDC Disciplinary Code 2.10. The Disciplinary Offense Report
was then forwarded to Sgt. Simmons's supervisor, who recommended that a "major" disciplinary hearing be
held. On September 18, 1998, Inmate Odom was notified of the charge in writing. Four days later, on
September 22, 1998, Inmate Odom was brought before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") to face the
charge of Fighting Without A Weapon. During the hearing on September 22, the DHO allowed Inmate
Odom to make a statement. Inmate Odom alleged that he had not received notice of his placement in PHD
and that he was not brought before the DHO within 10 calendar days of being placed in PHD. The DHO
informed Inmate Odom that he was released from PHD within 10 days. The DHO then asked whether it was
Inmate Odom's signature on the PHD form. Inmate Odom denied that is was and stated that the signature
must be a forgery.
In addition, Inmate Odom demanded a dismissal based on the charging officer's failure to type his report.
With respect to the incident itself, Inmate Odom denied fighting with another inmate, sustaining an injury to
his head, and receiving medical treatment for that injury. The DHO accepted the charging officer's report
into evidence. He then took the testimony of Cpt. Patricia Brown, who testified that Inmate Odom had
received written notification of his placement in PHD. The DHO also took the testimony of Nurse Flannery,
who testified that she treated Inmate Odom for an abrasion to the back of his head on September 11, 1998, the
day of the alleged incident. At the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO found Inmate Odom guilty of the
charge and sanctioned him with the loss of 90 days of good time and 30 days of cell restriction.
On October 2, 1998, Inmate Odom filed a grievance, alleging that he had not been served notice of his
placement in PHD and that there was no evidence that he had engaged in an altercation. On October 22,
1998, the warden denied his grievance. On October 26, 1998, Inmate Odom appealed the warden's decision,
alleging a number of procedural violations regarding his Step One grievance. On December 1, 1998,
Department Director William Catoe denied Inmate Odom's Step Two grievance on the basis that there was
substantial evidence to support Inmate Odom's conviction. Inmate Odom then filed an action with the Court
of Common Pleas, which was remanded by the court on April 24, 2000. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
The Division's jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely from the decision of the South Carolina
Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). In Al- Shabazz, the Supreme
Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the Department of
Corrections in "non-collateral" matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a
conviction or sentence, by appealing those decisions to the Division and ultimately to the circuit court
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. 338 S.C. at 373, 376, 527 S.E.2d at 752, 754.
The statutory right to sentence-related credits is a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 369-370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. An inmate facing the loss of sentence-related credits is
entitled to minimal due process to ensure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated. Id. While
due process is "flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands," Stono
River Envtl. Protection Ass'n v. S.C. Dep't of Health and Envtl. Control, 305 S.C. 90, 94, 406 S.E.2d 30, 341
(1991), certain elements must be satisfied in order for procedural due process requirements to be met,
including adequate advance notice of the charges, adequate opportunity for a hearing in which the inmate can
present witnesses and documentary evidence, and an impartial hearing officer who prepares a written
statement of all the evidence presented and the reasons for his decision. Al-Shabazz, 527 S.E.2d at 751, citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974).
As in all cases subject to appellate review by the Division, the standard of review in these inmate grievance
cases is limited to the record presented. An Administrative Law Judge may not substitute his judgment for
that of an agency unless the agency's determination is affected by error of law or is clearly erroneous in view
of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)
(Supp. 2000); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756; Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d
304 (1981). Moreover, to afford "meaningful judicial review," the Administrative Law Judge must
"adequately explain" his decision by "documenting the findings of fact" and basing his decision on "reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756.
The Record reflects that Inmate Odom was afforded all process due him pursuant to Al-Shabazz. The Record
indicates that Inmate Odom received written notice of the charges in excess of 24 hours prior to his hearing.
The Record also indicates that Inmate Odom was brought before a DHO who permitted him to make a
statement and to offer evidence in his own defense. Although Inmate Odom argues that the signature on the
PHD notice is not his, the DHO received the testimony of the officer who delivered the Report and Notice to
Inmate Odom stating that Inmate Odom did receive the notice and that the signature was that of Inmate
Odom. In addition, Inmate Odom received a copy of the Hearing Record informing him of his conviction,
based on the charging officer's report, and his resulting punishment. After his conviction, Inmate Odom filed
a grievance and received a prompt response from his warden, which Inmate Odom then appealed to the
Department. Clearly, with respect to Inmate Odom's conviction of the charge of Fighting Without A
Weapon, the Department provided all process contemplated by both the United States Supreme Court in Wolff and the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz.
Moreover, although Inmate Odom offered testimony to the contrary, there is substantial evidence in the
Record that Inmate Odom was involved in an altercation with another inmate. The DHO received into
evidence Ofc. Simmons's Report, detailing his observations and a statement he received from the other
inmate allegedly involved in the altercation. In addition, the DHO received the testimony of two other
witnesses, which supported the substance of Ofc. Simmons's Report. Therefore, I affirm the Department's
final decision regarding Inmate Odom's conviction.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Final Decision of the Department is affirmed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal of Inmate Odom is dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
Chief Administrative Law Judge
July 25, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. On December 17, 1998, Inmate Odom filed an action with the Court of Common Pleas in Berkeley County. By
Order dated April 24, 2000, the Honorable Daniel E. Martin conditionally dismissed Inmate Odom's action pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, infra. |