ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Charlie
Holley ("Appellant"). On July 19, 1999, Appellant was convicted of possession of contraband. As a result of
his conviction, Appellant lost thirty days of good time credit. Appellant filed a grievance with the
Department on August 31, 1999, and received a final decision from the Department on October 6, 1999. On
November 10, 1999, Appellant attempted to file an action seeking review of the Department's final decision
in the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County. (1) On March 13, 2000, Appellant filed this appeal with
the Division.
On September 14, 2000, the undersigned issued an Order of Remand requiring the Department to provide a
certified transcript of Appellant's disciplinary hearing. After the Department filed a Motion for
Reconsideration, the undersigned issued a second order on November 29, 2000. In that order, the
undersigned still required the Department to provide a certified transcript of Appellant's disciplinary hearing.
On February 7, 2001, the Department in fact provided a certified transcript of Appellant's disciplinary hearing
held July 19, 1999, and July 20, 1999.
In a Motion to Dismiss filed July 23, 2001, and amended July 26, 2001, the Department asserted Appellant's
claim was moot because he was released from prison.
An issue is moot when a judgment on the issue will have no practical effect on an existing case or
controversy. Mathis v. South Carolina State Highway Dep't, 260 S.C. 344, 195 S.E.2d 713 (1973).
In this case, Appellant was released from prison on June 26, 2001. As a result, Appellant's claim regarding
good time credit is rendered moot.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted and this appeal is dismissed
with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________
MARVIN F. KITTRELL
Chief Administrative Law Judge
August 10, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Although Inmate Holley took all necessary steps to file his action with the Richland County Court of Common
Pleas, the Clerk of Court did not assign a docket number to his action pending the Supreme Court's rehearing of Al-Shabazz v. State, infra. Inmate Holley's pleadings were returned to him by the Clerk's office following the Supreme
Court's February 14, 2000 decision. By Order Denying Motion to Dismiss dated July 5, 2000, I acknowledged that
Inmate Holley "took all possible steps" to file his appeal with the circuit court, and, as such, the Division had
jurisdiction pursuant to Al-Shabazz v. State to hear Inmate Holley's appeal.
|
