South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Mark Kennedy, #261557 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Mark Kennedy, #261557

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
05-ALJ-04-01135-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER

STATEMENT OF CASE

This matter is before the Administrative Law Court (ALC) pursuant to the appeal of Mark Kennedy, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (Department). From the record, it appears that personal items belonging to Appellant are missing from his locker. 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 not challenging whether he received minimal due process involving a state-created property interests. Rather, Appellant is seeking to have the Department reimburse him for his lost property, based on the allegation that the Department did not secure it while Appellant was away. The Department, on the other hand, set forth that it investigated the grievance and that Appellant provided no evidence that the items were lost or misplaced due to employee negligence. The ALC cannot order the return of property that is lost. Furthermore, the ALC does not have jurisdiction to grant money damages for negligence, even if negligence is proven.[1] “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).

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



[1] The trial courts under the Judiciary have subject matter jurisdiction over tort claims. Sabb v. South Carolina State University, 350 S.C. 416, 567 S.E.2d 231 (2002). Furthermore, though “certain cases may be taken from the trial court's original jurisdiction by the General Assembly,” no such action has been taken concerning this case. 567 S.E.2d at 234.


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court