ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Grievance No.: MCCI 239-06
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) requiring him to register as a
Sex Offender due to his having been charged with a kidnapping offense under
S.C. Laws 23-3-430 and SCDC Policy No. OP 21.09 Appellant was convicted of
Kidnapping in 1999. Based upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that
the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
DISCUSSION
The
ALC’s jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Department is derived from Al-Shabazz
v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), which created a new avenue
by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the Department in
non-collateral matters under the Administrative Procedures Act, “ensur[ing]
that an inmate receives due process.” Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750.
In Al-Shabazz, the Court recognized that the administrative matters
entitled to review by the ALC “typically arise in two ways: (1) when an inmate
is disciplined and punishment is imposed and (2) when an inmate believes prison
officials have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits,
or custody status.” Id. In Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), the Court held that for
the ALC to have jurisdiction over an inmate’s claim, it must implicate a
state-created liberty interest.
This
type of appeal is not one in which SCDC has taken Appellant’s created liberty
interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing. Nor is this a case in
which Appellant contends that his sentence, sentence related credits, or
custody status have been erroneously calculated.
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.
______________________________
Carolyn C.
Matthews
Administrative
Law Judge
May ___, 2007
Columbia, South Carolina
|
