ORDERS:
Order of Dismissal
Grievance No. ECI-1038-04
This
matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court)
pursuant to the letter filed by Appellant (Inmate) above named, who is
incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC).
Inmates
Step 1 Grievance under “ACTION REQUESTED” seeks criminal charges against
certain staff members for crimes they allegedly committed against him. The
Grievance was sent to the central office for review. There was no good time
lost by the inmate nor was there any other allegations that involved a liberty
or property interest.
This
is clearly a case in which this Court must adhere to the traditional “hands
off” doctrine regarding judicial involvement in prison disciplinary procedure
and other internal prison matters. See Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C.
565, 266 S.E. 2d 779 (1980) and Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527
S.E. 2d 742 (2000).
Moreover,
the issues raised in the notice of appeal were not raised in the Step 1
Grievance. It is well settled that an issue cannot be raised for the first time
on appeal but must have been raised and ruled upon by the trial court to be
preserved for appellate review. Ellie, Inc. v Miccichi, 358 S.C. 78, 594
SE2d 486 (2004). Thus, this matter should be dismissed on that ground.
Under Slezak v. S.C. Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E. 2d 506,
(2004) the Administrative Law Court is to have jurisdiction of all properly
perfected inmate appeals but “Summary dismissal may be appropriate where the
inmate’s grievance does not implicate a state created liberty or property
interest.” Such is the case here.
THEREFORE
IT IS ORDERED for the reasons set forth above, the decision of Respondent
as set forth in the Step 2 Grievance form is AFFIRMED and this appeal DISMISSED
WITH PREJUDICE.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
John D. McLeod
Administrative
Law Judge
April 10, 2006
Columbia, South Carolina |
