ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT
OF CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC)
pursuant to the appeal of Lawrence Agnew, an inmate incarcerated with the
Department of Corrections (Department). From the record, it appears that
Appellant’s radio and television were lost while in the custody of the
Department during his move from McCormick Correctional Institution. Therefore,
it appears Appellant may have been deprived of a property interest by the
neglectful act of the Department.
DISCUSSION
The
Court’s jurisdiction to hear this matter was originally derived from the
decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338
S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). The Supreme Court limited the ALC’s
jurisdiction in inmate appeals to state created liberty interests typically
involving: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have
erroneously calculated his/her sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody
status; and (2) cases in which an inmate has received punishment in a major
disciplinary hearing as a result of a serious rule violation. Id. Later, the Court clarified that the ALC must provide minimal due process for
state-created liberty or property interests. Slezak v. South Carolina Dept.
of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004).
Appellant
is seeking to purchase a replacement television and radio and also seeks to
have the Department reimburse him for the value of the lost items. The ALC
does not have jurisdiction to grant money damages for negligence, even if
negligence is proven. “Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, even by consent of the
parties, and should be taken notice of by [the] Court.” Anderson v..
Anderson, 299 S.C. 110, 382 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1989). Furthermore, pursuant
to SCDC policy, televisions cannot be purchased and sent into the institution.
The only televisions allowed are those which were in the inmate’s possession
prior to February 14, 1994 or those purchased from the canteen prior to March
14, 1995. SCDC Department Policy/Procedure § 8.1.2
Moreover,
while we sympathize with prisoners who have lost property as a result of lack
of due care by those who are their caretakers, this type of inmate property
loss does not implicate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330 (1986) the U.S. Supreme Court
noted that “[h]istorically, [the] guarantee of due process has been applied to
deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life,
liberty, or property. Therefore, “the Due Process Clause is simply not
implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or
injury to life, liberty, or property.” 474 U.S. at 328. “The basic rationale
for the Daniels decision is a powerful one. The term ‘deprive,’ as
employed in the Fourteenth Amendment, suggests more than a mere failure to take
reasonable care: it connotes an intentional or deliberate denial of life,
liberty, or property.” Pink v. Lester, 52 F.3d 73, 75 (4th Cir. 1995). In fact, to allow claims based on theories of negligence would
“trivialize the centuries-old principle of due process of law.” Daniels,
474 U.S. at 332.
Therefore,
dismissal is appropriate on the following grounds each of which is a separate
and independent ground for dismissal, to wit:
(1) This Court
has no jurisdiction to grant money damages for negligence; and,
(2) In this instance, the interest
of the inmate in the missing property is not protected under the Fourteenth
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE
ORDERED that the appeal of the Appellant is DISMISSED and the Final
Decision of the Department is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO
ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph
King Anderson, III
Administrative
Law Judge
February 22, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina
|