ORDERS:
ORDER OF REVERSAL WITH PROVISO
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This
matter is before the South Carolina Administrative Law Court (ALC or Court)
pursuant to the Notice of Appeal filed, by Appellant (Inmate) above named, who
is incarcerated with the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC). Inmate
appeals his conviction for Striking an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810) for
which he lost 48 days good time credits. The Notice of Appeal filed by Inmate asserts
the following grounds:
a) Department’s
decision is unfair;
b) Department’s
decision is biased;
c) Department’s
decision is not in accord with its own policies and procedures;
d) Alleged victim was
not present at the hearing and did not provide a statement;
e) Inmate not
allowed to hear the testimony of witnesses for SCDC or review their
statement;
f) Charging officer
was not present at the hearing;
g) Other inmates
allegedly involved were released from pre-hearing detention before
Appellant was released;
h) The
investigation took too long (or Inmate was kept in pre-hearing detention too
long); and
i) There was no
evidence that Inmate was involved in the incident.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
The
Court's jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely 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 Court's appellate jurisdiction in inmate
appeals is limited to state created liberty interests typically involving: (1)
cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously
calculated his 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. When reviewing the
Department's decisions in inmate grievance matters, the Court sits in an
appellate capacity. Id, 527 S.E.2d at 756. Consequently, the review in
these inmate grievance cases is limited to the Record presented.
An
Administrative Law Judge may not substitute his judgment for that of an agency
"as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." S.C. Code
Ann. § 1- 23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005). Furthermore, an Administrative Law Judge
may not reverse or modify an agency's decision unless substantial rights of the
Appellant have been prejudiced because the decision is clearly erroneous in
view of the substantial evidence on the whole Record, arbitrary or affected by
an error of law. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005); See also Marietta Garage, Inc. v. South Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety,
337 S.C. 133, 522 S.E.2d 605 (Ct. App. 1999); South Carolina Dep’t of Labor,
Licensing and Regulation v. Girgis, 332 S.C. 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App.
1998). "'Substantial evidence' is not a mere scintilla of evidence nor the
evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which,
considering the Record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the
conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must have reached in order
to justify its action." Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276 S.C. 130, 135, 276
S.E.2d 304, 306 (1981). Accordingly, the possibility of drawing two
inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative
agency's finding from being supported by substantial evidence. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388 (1995). Moreover, in Al-Shabazz,
the Court made it clear that since prison officials are in the best position to
decide inmate disciplinary matters, the Courts and therefore this tribunal
adhere to a "hands off" approach to internal prison disciplinary
policies and procedures when reviewing inmate appeals under the APA. Al-Shabazz at 757; See also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d
779 (1980) (stating the traditional "hands off" approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison discipline and policy).
DISCUSSION
In
this appeal, Inmate Fuller appeals his conviction for Striking an Inmate
with/without a Weapon (810) for which he lost 48 days good time credits. After
reviewing the record, it is clear that substantial rights of the Appellant have
been prejudiced because the Department’s decision is clearly erroneous in view
of the substantial evidence on the whole Record. See S.C. Code Ann. §
1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2005); See also Marietta Garage, Inc. v.
South Carolina Dep’t of Public Safety, 337 S.C. 133, 522 S.E.2d 605 (Ct.
App. 1999); South Carolina Dep’t of Labor, Licensing and Regulation v. Girgis,
332 S.C. 162, 503 S.E.2d 490 (Ct. App. 1998). In reading the Transcript of
the record of the Disciplinary Hearing, it became obvious that there was no
“substantial evidence” evidence for Inmate to have been convicted of Striking
an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810) and that his conviction thereof was
arbitrary, capricious and characterized by an unwarranted exercise of
discretion.
Briefly,
there seems to be no doubt that Inmate was present when the attack on Inmate
William Simmons occurred. However, there is no evidence that Inmate Fuller
actually struck anyone with a lock in a sock. SCDC had confidential information
concerning the incident but even that failed to provide a direct statement in
the record that Inmate Fuller struck anyone. Moreover, there is no testimony
about any wounds to Inmate William Simmons except stab wounds which were
inflicted by Inmate Smith.
Even
under the abbreviated process permitted in prison disciplinary proceedings, the
evidence here does not measure up to the standard required.
ORDER
IT
IS THEREFORE ORDERED that subject to the limitations hereinafter set forth,
the conviction of Appellant for Striking an Inmate with/without a Weapon (810)
is hereby REVERSED and any good time credits or privileges taken are
hereby RESTORED, PROVIDED, that nothing herein contained shall be
construed to require that Inmate Fuller be returned to the same institution
where the incident occurred, if he in fact was removed therefrom.
AND
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________________________
September 5, 2006 John D. McLeod
Columbia, South Carolina Administrative
Law Judge |