ORDERS:
ORDER
Grievance No. LCI 2691-07
In
the above-captioned matter, Appellant appeals the decision of Respondent South
Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) to deny his grievance
concerning his disciplinary conviction for Refusing or Failing to Obey Orders, 825
under SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. He contends that the
conviction should be overturned because he was charged with 825 twice within a
30-day period and because the hearing was not held in a timely manner. Based
upon the record presented in this appeal, I find that the Department’s decision
to deny Appellant’s grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
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). Appellant
contends that his Refusing or Failing to Obey Orders conviction should be
overturned because his conviction was not supported by the evidence, and that he
did not receive due process of law. In response to Appellant’s grievance, the
Department determined that the evidence presented at the disciplinary hearing
sufficiently supported his conviction; that the hearing was conducted in
compliance with procedural requirements; and that the punishment imposed—loss
of sixty (60) days good time; loss of sixty (60) days canteen and phone
privileges; and loss of contact visitation for sixty (60) days—was appropriate
for the offense.
DISCUSSION
Due Process
The
Record reveals that Appellant was afforded all the required due process in
prison disciplinary cases: (1) Notice of the Charges (Refusing or Failing to
Obey Orders); (2) disclosure of evidence against Defendant (Disciplinary
Offense Report was read); (3) an Opportunity to be heard (Hearing on November 6,
2007); (4) a neutral and detached hearing body (Hearing Officer); (5) aid of
Counsel substitute or other substitute aid; and (6) a written statement by the
Fact Finder as to the Evidence relied upon (Major Disciplinary Report and
Hearing Record). Therefore, by a final agency decision dated August 7, 2008,
the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial
before this Court.
The
charging officer, Corporal D. Anderson reported that on September 28, 2007,
Appellant refused to go to the yeard when instructed to do so. In his Notice
of Appeal, Appellant says he was wrongly charged with two disciplinary
infrations in the same month. Appellant says SCDC Policy OP-22.14 prohibits
this because he was in the Special Management Unit at the time. However,
OP-22.14, Paragraph 21, does allow SCDC to take good time from SMU inmates for
more than one disciplinary infraction per month but merely gives SCDC the
option to do so informally and without a hearing. Appellant was given a
hearing for both of the infractions referred to; this was allowed, but not
required, by OP-22.14. Appellant also complains that the hearing officer did
not properly get permission for a time extension on the hearing date. SCDC
submits this was properly done, as evidenced by the Disciplinary Hearing
Extension form signed by the Warden on October 24, 2007.
Having
fully considered the documents filed by Appellant and the Department and having
closely reviewed the record in this matter, I find that Appellant’s disciplinary
conviction and the sanctions imposed upon him as a consequence of that
conviction were the result of a routine and good-faith exercise of the
Department’s administrative responsibilities that is sufficiently supported by the
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. Accordingly, the Department’s decision in this
matter should be affirmed.
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
February 4, 2009
Columbia, South Carolina
|
