ORDERS:
ORDER
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Robert
Logan, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since November 11, 1987.
As a result of an incident occurring on August 16, 1999, Inmate Logan was convicted of Fighting Without A
Weapon, SCDC Disciplinary Code 2.10. On September 3, 1999, Inmate Logan filed a grievance alleging that
he had not received proper notification of his hearing's postponement, held on August 26, 1999. The
Department denied his grievance, finding that Inmate Logan had received both oral and written notice of the
postponement. In addition, the Department found that the hearing officer had followed Department
procedures and that there was substantial evidence to support Inmate Logan's conviction. On March 30,
2000, Inmate Logan filed this appeal with the Division (1), alleging that his due process rights were violated
when the Department failed to properly notify him of his hearing's postponement from August 24, 1999, to
August 26, 1999, and from August 26, 1999, to August 30, 1999.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On August 17, 1999, a corrections officer, Eugene Skipper, observed Inmate Logan fighting with another
inmate on the recreation field. Officer Skipper ordered both inmates to stop fighting. After the inmates failed
to comply with Officer Skipper's directive, Officer Skipper and two other Department employees broke up
the fight. Thereafter, Officer Skipper prepared an Incident Report, in which he detailed the incident, and a
Disciplinary Offense Report, in which he charged Inmate Logan with Fighting Without A Weapon, SCDC
Disciplinary Code 2.10. The Disciplinary Offense Report was then forwarded to Officer Skipper's
supervisor, who recommended that a "major" disciplinary hearing be held. On August 19, 1999, Inmate
Logan was notified of the charge in writing and informed that his hearing would be held on August 24, 1999.
Some time prior to August 24, 1999, Inmate Logan was informed that his hearing would be delayed until
August 26, 1999. On August 26, Inmate Logan was brought before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO")
to face the charge of Fighting Without A Weapon; however, Officer Skipper was unavailable to testify on that
date for medical reasons. Because Inmate Logan had requested his accuser's presence, the DHO postponed
Inmate Logan's hearing to permit Officer Skipper to testify. Inmate Logan received written notice of the
second postponement. On August 30, 1999, the DHO reconvened Inmate Logan's hearing.
During the August 30 hearing, the DHO allowed Inmate Logan, through his counsel substitute, to read into
the Record two notes, one allegedly written by the inmate involved in the August 17 altercation. The two
statements suggested that Inmate Logan was targeted by the other inmate, rendering him the non-aggressor.
After reading the two statements, Inmate Logan asked for a continuance so that a handwriting analysis may be
performed to prove that the notes were written by the other inmate involved in the fight. The DHO refused to
do so, and instead asked Officer Skipper if both inmates were fighting. Officer Skipper replied, "both
inmates were holding onto each other." At the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO found Inmate Logan
guilty of the charge and sanctioned him with the loss of 60 days' good time.
On September 3, 1999, Inmate Logan filed a grievance with the Department, alleging that he had not been
given an explanation for the first delay of his hearing, which was originally scheduled for August 24, 1999.
In addition, Inmate Logan alleged that Officer Skipper's supervisor failed to "legible [sic] sign the date of the
month" on his Disciplinary Offense Report. Because of this, Inmate Logan requested that his charge be
overturned and dismissed and two other inmates be charged instead. Not surprisingly, the warden denied his
grievance, stating that Inmate Logan admitted being told that his August 24 hearing was postponed, and that
he had received written notification that his August 26 hearing was postponed. The warden also noted that
the DHO had followed Department policies and procedures and that the DHO's decision was based on
substantial evidence. On October 1, 1999, Inmate Logan appealed the warden's decision, reiterating his
earlier complaints. In addition, Inmate Logan stated that his counsel substitute read into the Hearing Record a
note written by two other inmates describing a plan to assault Inmate Logan. However, Inmate Logan did not
explain the significance of this note. On November 4, 1999, the Department issued its final decision, denying
Inmate Logan's grievance. After his action, filed with the Court of Common Pleas for Richland County, was
returned to him in March 2000 following the Supreme Court's decision in Al-Shabazz v. State, infra, Inmate
Logan filed this appeal.
III. ANALYSIS
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). In Al- Shabazz, the Supreme
Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the Department of
Corrections in "non-collateral" matters, i.e., matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a
conviction or sentence, by appealing those decisions to the Division and ultimately to the circuit court
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. 338 S.C. at 373, 376, 527 S.E.2d at 752, 754.
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).
As in all cases subject to appellate review by the Division, the standard of 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 unless the agency's determination is affected by error of law or is clearly erroneous in view
of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6)
(Supp. 1999); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756; Lark v. Bi-Lo, Inc., 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d
304 (1981). Moreover, to afford "meaningful judicial review," the Administrative Law Judge must
"adequately explain" his decision by "documenting the findings of fact" and basing his decision on "reliable,
probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record." Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756.
The Record reflects that Inmate Logan was afforded all process due him pursuant to Al-Shabazz. Despite his
arguments to the contrary, the Record indicates that Inmate Logan received written notice of the charge in
excess of twenty-four hours prior to his hearing. Although that hearing was delayed twice, Inmate Logan
received notice of the delays. In addition, Inmate Logan fails to allege that he suffered some prejudice as a
result of the delays. Inmate Logan's hearing was held before an impartial hearing officer, who permitted
Inmate Logan to present evidence in his own defense. Specifically, Inmate Logan was permitted to read into
evidence a handwritten note, allegedly authored by another inmate, detailing a planned assault upon Inmate
Logan. In addition, Inmate Logan received a copy of the Hearing Record informing him of his conviction,
based on the charging officer's report, and his resulting punishment. After his conviction, Inmate Logan filed
a grievance and received a prompt response from his warden, which Inmate Logan then appealed to the
Department. Clearly, with respect to Inmate Logan's conviction of the charge of Fighting Without A
Weapon, the Department provided all process contemplated by both the United States Supreme Court in Wolff and the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz.
Finally, an examination of the Record reveals that there is substantial evidence to support Inmate Logan's
conviction of Fighting Without A Weapon. In convicting Inmate Logan of the charge, the DHO relied upon
Officer Skipper's report and his testimony that both Inmate Logan and the other inmate were fighting.
Consequently, Inmate Logan's implication that the DHO's refusal to postpone the hearing so that the
handwritten note could be analyzed is of no constitutional significance. Therefore, I affirm the Department's
final decision regarding Inmate Logan's conviction.
V. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appeal of Inmate Logan is DISMISSED and the Final Decision of
the Department is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
Administrative Law Judge
August 6, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Although Inmate Logan 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 Logan's pleadings were returned to him by the Clerk's office
following the Supreme Court's February 14, 2000 decision. Because Inmate Logan took all possible steps to
file his appeal with the circuit court prior to the Al-Shabazz decision, I find that the Division has jurisdiction
pursuant toAl-Shabazz v. State to hear Inmate Logan's appeal. See Order Denying Motion to Dismiss in Holley v. S.C. Dept. of Corrections, Docket No. 00-ALJ-04-00002-AP (Kittrell, C.J.). |
