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

CAPTION:
Darrell Copeland vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Darrell Copeland

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-04-00099-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER GRANTING DISMISSAL
Grievance No. 184-00 UY

I. Introduction





South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) seeks to dismiss the appeal of Darrell Copeland (Copeland) for lack of jurisdiction . After reviewing the arguments, the motion to dismiss is granted.

II. Analysis





Pursuant to and as limited by Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), an inmate is entitled to a modified contested case hearing before a DOC employee when the inmate "challenges a disciplinary outcome, calculation of sentence-related credits, custody status, or other condition of imprisonment." Al-Shabazz v. State at 338 S.C. at 375 and 376. Al-Shabazz further explained that an ALJD appellate review is available for inmates dissatisfied with the outcome of the modified contested case hearing. Al-Shabazz v. State at 338 S.C. at 376 - 377. Therefore, an ALJD appellate review is available to inmates who claim the DOC decision incorrectly decided a disciplinary outcome, a calculation of sentence-related credits, a custody status, or a condition of imprisonment.

Here, this appeal does not challenge a disciplinary outcome, a calculation of sentence-related credits, a custody status, or a condition of imprisonment. Rather, this grievance is merely collateral support for an existing grievance already on appeal. The collateral support argued here is that Copeland believes he was wrongly disciplined on a prior occasion (which prior occasion is being appealed in another grievance) since on subsequent occasions, other inmates have been given only a warning for the same activity for which he was given discipline. An inmate cannot bolster an existing case by attempting to file what is merely a "separate grievance" in appearance only. Such a tactic does not present an appealable claim under Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000).



III. Order





The Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED and this case is ended.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: March 30, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court