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

Roy Lindsey , #67021 vs. SCDOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Roy Lindsey , #67021

South Carolina Department of Corrections





This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Roy Lindsey, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department"). In 1997, Lindsey was convicted of several prison disciplinary infractions after he and two other inmates escaped from Evans Correctional Institution. As a result of his convictions, Lindsey lost 4740 days of good-time credit. Lindsey filed a grievance with the Department on August 25, 1997, and received the Department's final decision on November 13, 1997. After receiving the Department's final decision, Lindsey filed in the Circuit Court of South Carolina a Petition of Habeus Corpus, which was later converted into an application for Post-Conviction Relief. Lindsey's application was pending in circuit court when the South Carolina Supreme Court decided Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). After his Application for Post Conviction Relief was remanded to the Department, Lindsey timely filed this appeal. In his appeal, Lindsey asserts that his institutional convictions constitute double jeopardy because he was prosecuted in the Court of General Sessions for charges stemming from the same incident.

In his Brief, Lindsey asserts that his disciplinary hearing did not comport with the requirements of due process and correctly points out that the Department has provided no Department reports, investigations, or other documents generated as a result of the escape. Nor has the Department provided a transcript of Lindsey's disciplinary hearing. The Department's Record consists only of Lindsey's Step 1 and Step 2 grievance forms, a copy of Lindsey's conviction summary, and and a copy of SCDC Policy 1500.24, Inmate Disciplinary Hearings.

In response to Lindsey's Motion for Default Judgment for the Department's failure to file a complete Record, the Department asserted that no transcript exists and that it has provided all documents that it is aware that pertain to the grievance constituting the subject of this appeal.


The Division'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). On September 5, 2001, the Division 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 Division'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 the Department has taken an inmate's created liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing.

Lindsey lost 4740 days of good time after he was convicted of the prison disciplinary infraction. As such, I find that this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Lindsey's appeal.

The statutory right to sentence-related credits is a protected liberty interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 369-370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. An inmate facing the loss of sentence related credits is entitled to minimal due process to ensure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated. Id. While due process is "flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands," Stono River Envtl. Protection Ass'n v. S.C. Dept. Of Health and Envtl. Control, 305 S.C. 90, 94, 406 S.E.2d 30, 341 (1991), certain elements must be satisfied in order for procedural due process requirements to be met, including adequate advance notice of the charges, adequate opportunity for a hearing in which the inmate can present witnesses and documentary evidence, and an impartial hearing officer who prepares a written statement of all the evidence presented and the reasons for his decision. Al-Shabazz, 527 S.E.2d at 751, citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2978-82 (1974).

In this case, there is no evidence upon which this tribunal can rely to find that Lindsey was afforded due process before the Department sanctioned him with the loss of 4740 days of good time. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Department to conduct a contested case hearing pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, in which the Department shall provide Lindsey with at least 24 hours' notice of the charges against him; shall afford Lindsey counsel substitute if necessary; shall afford Lindsey the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence on his own behalf; and shall prepare a written record of the hearing detailing the charges, the evidence the hearing officer relied upon in making a decision, and the imposed sanction and its justification.


IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department must conduct a contested case hearing on the charges stemming from Lindsey's escape pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act as outlined above so that a reviewable record may be created.





November 8, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court