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:
Kenneth Malone vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Kenneth Malone

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-04-00293-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
Grievance No. PCI-0245-00

I. Introduction





This matter is one in which Kenneth Malone (Malone) alleges acts of negligence have been committed by employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC). Specifically, Malone asserts that DOC employees negligently loss his undershirts. Malone's allegations sound in tort and raise the issue of whether subject matter jurisdiction resides in the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD). After reviewing the allegations and arguments, this matter must be dismissed.

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 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. That modified contested case hearing is held before a DOC employee since the "Department's procedures provide a sufficient method of resolving administrative matters pertaining to inmates without the need for a contested-case hearing before an ALJ." Al-Shabazz v. State at 338 S.C. at 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, it follows, an ALJD appellate review is available only for those matters in which a modified contested case could have been granted, i.e., one in which an inmate "challenges a disciplinary outcome, calculation of sentence-related credits, custody status, or other condition of imprisonment."

Here, Malone does not challenge a disciplinary outcome, calculation of sentence-related credits, custody status, or other condition of imprisonment. Rather, Malone seeks money damages for alleged negligence committed by DOC. No contested case and thus no jurisdiction for an appellate review is available here. Rather, a forum other than the ALJD must be sought when an inmate alleges negligent actions by a state agency. See South Carolina Tort Claims Act, see §§ 15-78-10 et seq.

III. Order





The appeal of Kenneth Malone's grievance to the ALJD must be dismissed since the ALJD has no jurisdiction to review tort claims alleging negligence by DOC. Thus, this matter is dismissed and the appeal ended.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: March 22, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court