ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. PCI 0184-01
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to the decision of the South
Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). Appellant Rodney Jones contends
that the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) does not have the authority to revoke good-time
credits from inmates as a result of their disciplinary convictions. Having reviewed the record, applicable law, and the briefs
filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude that the Department's decision to deny Appellant's meritless grievance must
be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On March 20, 2001, Appellant filed a grievance with the Department in which he contends that: "[DOC] by law does not
have the right to take 'any' good time or gain time from any inmate!" "Inmate's Reason for Appeal," Grievance # PCI
0184-01, Inmate Grievance Form, Step 2. The Department denied this grievance and Appellant appealed that decision to
this tribunal. On appeal, Appellant again argues that the Department has no authority to revoke good-time credits from
inmates.
ANALYSIS
In Al-Shabazz, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that inmates may seek review of final decisions of the Department
in certain "non-collateral" or administrative matters (i.e., those matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity
of a conviction or sentence) by appealing those decisions to the ALJD pursuant to the South Carolina Administrative
Procedures Act (APA). Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 376, 527 S.E.2d at 754. In McNeil v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, a majority of the judges of the ALJD, sitting en banc, held that this tribunal's jurisdiction to hear inmate
appeals under Al-Shabazz is limited to: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously
calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status, and (2) cases in which the Department has taken an
inmate's created liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing. McNeil v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, No.
00-ALJ-04-00336-AP, slip op. at 4-5 (S.C. Admin. Law Judge. Div. Sept. 5, 2001) (en banc). In the case at hand,
Appellant contends that the Department improperly revoked his good-time credits; accordingly, this tribunal has
jurisdiction over this matter.
When reviewing the Department's decisions in inmate grievance matters, the ALJD sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 377, 527 S.E.2d at 754. Consequently, this tribunal's review of inmate appeals is confined to the
record presented, id., and its inquiry into these matters is primarily concerned with ensuring that the Department has
granted aggrieved inmates the process they are due when their constitutional rights are implicated. Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at
750; McNeil, No. 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP, at 5 ("[O]ur review is limited solely to the determination of whether the
Department granted 'minimal due process' in reaching [its] decisions . . . ."). Further, recognizing that prison officials are
in the best position to decide inmate disciplinary matters, this tribunal will adhere to the traditional "hands off" approach to
internal prison disciplinary policies and procedures when reviewing inmate appeals under the APA. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C.
at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757; see also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional "hands off"
approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison discipline and policy). However, notwithstanding this
deferential standard of review, this tribunal must conduct meaningful review of the Department's actions to ensure that
inmate grievances are addressed in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 383, 527 S.E.2d at
757.
Here, Appellant contends that the Department has no authority to revoke good-time credits from inmates as a result of their
disciplinary convictions. This contention is plainly without merit. Department policy, South Carolina law, and the United
State Constitution all permit the Department to revoke inmates' earned good-time credits as punishment for prison
disciplinary offenses. See DOC Policy/Procedure OP 21.11; S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-210(D) (Supp. 2001); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Therefore, the Department had the authority to revoke Appellant's good-time credits as
a result of his disciplinary infractions. Accordingly, this appeal is without merit and must be dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's denial of Appellant's grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
June 27, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |