ORDERS:
FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (“ALJD”) pursuant to the
appeal of James B. McKenith, IV, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections
(“DOC”). In his appeal, McKenith alleges that he has been held in security detention for more than
six months and was not given notice of the six-month state classification committee review, all in
violation of DOC policy.
The ALJD’s jurisdiction to hear inmate appeals 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). On
September 5, 2001, the ALJD issued an En Banc Order in McNeil v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001), interpreting the breadth of its jurisdiction
pursuant to Al-Shabazz. The decision holds that the ALJD’s appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals
is limited to two types of cases: (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
DOC has taken an inmate’s created liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing.
In this case, McKenith alleges that the DOC should not be retaining him in security detention
for more than six months without a state classification committee review conducted in accordance
with DOC policy. As such, I find that this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear McKenith’s appeal.
To obtain relief, McKenith must show that the DOC abridged a liberty interest in his security
status without due process of law. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Al-Shabazz v.
State, 338 S.C. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Generally, an inmate has no liberty interest in his security
and custody classification. Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 470 S.E.2d 848 (1996). Unless it imposes
an “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life,”
an inmate’s custody status infringes no liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486
(1995).
In its Respondent’s Brief, the DOC asserts that “McKenith has failed to allege any facts that
suggest the Department acted arbitrarily, capriciously or from personal bias in retaining him in
security detention. Nor has McKenith alleged any facts that suggest that his retention in security
detention somehow imposes ‘atypical and significant hardship’ on him.” However, in his Appellant’s
Brief, McKenith does allege that the DOC acted from personal bias in keeping him in security
detention; McKenith asserts that the DOC kept him in security detention to retaliate against him for
allegedly having assaulted an officer in 2001. Furthermore, McKenith does assert in his Appellant’s
Brief that he in fact “has suffered severe hardships and continues to suffer every day he spends on
[security detention] in SMU” and that “any time an inmate is placed in SMU it is a very ‘dramatic
departure from the basic conditions’ of the inmate’s sentence.” The DOC has not responded to either
of these allegations;
therefore, this tribunal will assume the allegations to be true for the purposes
of considering McKenith’s appeal. Taking McKenith’s assertions at face value, I find that a liberty
interest is implicated in this appeal.
In his Appellant’s Brief, McKenith requests that certain DOC officials who were involved in
this case either be permanently relieved of their jobs or suspended for one month without pay, and
that the Appellant be released from security detention at the earliest possible time. This tribunal does
not have the authority to release or suspend DOC employees, and it will not order the Appellant’s
immediate release from security detention as relief in this case. However, in his Step One Grievance,
Appellant requested that he go up for state classification board review “within the next month or so,”
and the DOC asserted in response that Appellant’s next SCC review is scheduled for June 2003.
Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the DOC provide Appellant James B. McKenith, IV with
a state classification commission review conducted in accordance with DOC policy and procedure
and due process of law on or before June 30, 2003.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
C. Dukes Scott
Administrative Law Judge
May 23, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina. |
