ORDERS:
ORDER
Grievance No. ACI 1022-08
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 Striking an Inmate with or without a
Weapon, 810 under SCDC Inmate Disciplinary System Policy OP-22.14. He contends
that the conviction should be overturned because he was not guilty of the
offense. 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 Striking an Inmate with or without a Weapon 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—fifty dollars ($50.00) restitution; loss of sixty (60) days
good time; loss of one hundred and eighty (180) days canteen and phone
privileges; sixty (60) days disciplinary detention; and loss of contact
visitation for one hundred and eighty (180) 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 (Striking an Inmate with
or without a Weapon); (2) disclosure of evidence against Defendant (Disciplinary
Offense Report was read); (3) an Opportunity to be heard (Hearing on June 3,
2008); (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 29, 2008,
the Department denied Appellant’s grievance. Appellant now appeals that denial
before this Court.
The
charging officer, Officer E. Jamison, reported that on May 22, 2008, he heard
loud noises coming from Cell A-51 of the Bamberg Unit in Allendale Correctional
Institution. Ofc. Jamison reported that we he walked over to cell A-51, inmate
Scott Stroud was standing at the cell doorway, banging on the door and asking
to be let out. The report states that Stroud had blood on his face and arms
and was carrying an 8-inch long piece of metal, and he told Ofc. Jamison that
Appellant, his roommate, tried to stab him. Ofc. Jamison reported that both
inmates had stab wounds and both were taken to a holding cell and charged with
a disciplinary offense. Appellant says he should not have been charged because
no one saw him stab or strike Stroud and because Stroud says appellant only
“tried” to stab him. Appellant also complains that Ofc. Jamison did not record
his employee identification number on the incident report.
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
|
