ORDERS:
ORDER
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant James Mitchell appeals of the decision of
Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) in refusing to
process his grievance concerning his request to be transferred to Kershaw
Correctional Institution. Based upon the record presented in this appeal, I
find that the Department’s decision to reject Appellant’s grievance must be
affirmed.
BACKGROUND
In
Step 1 Inmate Grievance Form dated November 30, 2006, Appellant requests the
Department to transfer him to Kershaw Correctional Institution. In response to
Appellant’s grievance, the Department determined that Administrative transfers
are non-grievable issues. Further, Appellant’s custody status was changed on
November 7, 2006. While Appellant’s Step 1 Grievance Form was dated November
29, 2006, it was not actually submitted to grievance officials until November
30, 2006; thus, it was not timely filed within fifteen days of the alleged action
as required by Department policy. Therefore, on November 30, 2006, the
Department returned Appellant’s Step 1 Grievance Form to him unprocessed. Appellant
now appeals that denial before this Court.
DISCUSSION
This
appeal is before this Court pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C.
354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), and Slezak v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004). Because
Appellant failed to file his grievance within the time period mandated under
SCDC Policy Number GA-01.12, Paragraph 13.1, or the exceptions set forth in
Paragraph 13.9, this Court can not grant or deny Appellant any relief as he has
not complied with Department policy regarding the processing of grievances. Moreover,
to the extent that the relief Appellant seeks in this matter is to be
transferred to another institution of his choice, this Court has no authority to
intervene in internal Department matters so as to grant such relief.
Having
fully considered the documents filed by Appellant and the Department and having
closely reviewed the record in this matter, I find that the Department’s
decision to deny Appellant’s grievance was the result of a routine and
good-faith exercise of the Department’s administrative responsibilities that is
supported by sufficient evidence in the record. Further, there is nothing in
the record to suggest that the Department’s decision was arbitrary, capricious,
or the result of personal bias or prejudice.
ORDER
For
the reasons set forth above,
IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s
grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D.
GEATHERS
Administrative
Law Judge
1205 Pendleton
Street, Suite 224
Columbia, South
Carolina 29201-3731
April 10, 2007
Columbia, South Carolina
|
