ORDERS:
ORDER
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of
Jerry L. Brown, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since
September 9,1991. On December 15, 1999, Inmate Brown was fired from his job with Prison Industries
at Lieber Correctional Institution ("Facility"). After his termination, Inmate Brown failed to accrue
earned work credit for the period of his unemployment. Also, for a six week period following his
December 2, 1999 deposit of a check into his E.H. Cooper Trust Account, Inmate Brown was denied
access to his deposited funds. Inmate Brown filed a grievance on December 21, 1999, and received a
final decision from the Department on May 16, 2000. On June 7, 2000, Inmate Brown filed this appeal
with the Division.
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
On November 23, 1999, the Facility Mailroom received registered mail addressed to Inmate Brown. On
December 2, 1999, Inmate Brown was ordered to the mailroom to receive his registered mail. The
envelope contained a check from Container Royalty Supplemental Cash Benefit Fund that was made out
to Inmate Brown in the amount of $6,162.44. Inmate Brown endorsed the check. Inmate Brown then
attempted to send the check out of the Facility in a self-addressed envelope he received with the check,
but was not permitted to do so. The check was then deposited into Inmate Brown's prison account in
the E.H. Cooper Trust Fund ("Account") on December 7, 1999. That day, Inmate Brown attempted to
make a number of withdrawals from his account, which, prior to the December 7 deposit, contained
twelve cents. However, an unidentified Department employee denied Inmate Brown's requests for
withdrawals and informed him in writing that he could not have access to his deposit until January 18,
2000, because a six-week hold had been placed on the deposited check. By January 29, 2000, Inmate
Brown's account had earned $10.35 in interest.
On December 15, 1999, Inmate Brown reported to the Facility's Prison Industries for work. Once he
arrived, Inmate Brown's supervisor terminated him for failing to report for work the previous day.
Apparently, on December 14, 1999, Inmate Brown received instructions to report to the Facility's
library and mailroom. Instead of reporting to work and informing his supervisor of his instructions,
Inmate Brown reported to the library and mailroom. Inmate Brown's supervisor, considering the
absence "unexcused," terminated Inmate Brown. As a result, Inmate Brown failed to earn work credits
during his period of unemployment following his December 15 termination.
On December 21, 1999, Inmate Brown filed a grievance, complaining that he had been terminated from
his job unfairly and that he had been forced to deposit a check in his Account, whereupon such funds
were wrongfully withheld from him. In response, the warden informed Inmate Brown that the hold on
his account had been removed. In addition, the warden informed Inmate Brown that prison job
assignments were non-grievable pursuant to Department policy. Inmate Brown then appealed his
grievance to the Department, alleging that the warden failed to address his complaints that he had been
unfairly terminated and that he had been forced to deposit a check against his will. The Department's
Final Decision, issued on April 18, 2000, denied Inmate Brown's grievance regarding his complaint that
he had been unfairly terminated. The Department's Final Decision did not address Inmate Brown's
complaints regarding the check.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
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. In its appellate capacity, the Division is primarily concerned with ensuring that the
appellants receive all procedural process they are due.
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.
III. DISCUSSION
The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process applies only to the deprivation of a
life, liberty, or property interest. Board of Regents of State College v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569, 92 S. Ct.
2701, 2705 (1972). The statutory right to sentence-related credits is a protected liberty interest under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974); Al-Shabazz v.
State, 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. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. 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, 338 S.C. 371, 527 S.E.2d at 751, citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2978-82 (1974).
Absent a clear statutory expression otherwise, inmates have no protected interest in a specific job, or
even to any job at all. See James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627, 629-630 (3d Cir. 1989), citing Hewitt v.
Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), and Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). Likewise, inmates
have no protected interest in the ability to earn work credits. Unlike "good time" credits, which an
inmate is entitled to pursuant to state law, earned work credits are awarded at the discretion of the
Department Director. See S.C. Code Ann. 24-13-230(A)("[t]he Director of the Department of
Corrections may allow any prisoner in the custody of the department...who is assigned to a productive
duty assignment...a reduction from term of his sentence of zero to one day for every two days he is
employed...")(emphasis added); 461 U.S. 238, 249 (1983)(unless state law places "substantive
limitations" on official discretion, no liberty interest is created). Therefore, because the loss of earned
work credits would not "impose an atypical and significant hardship" on the inmate, no due process is
required before the Department places restrictions on an inmate's ability to earn such credits. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).
Moreover, an inmate's job assignment is not grievable. In accordance with the Department's policies
and procedures, inmates are permitted to file grievances challenging a number of Department actions
and decisions. Those same policies and procedures identify several types of issues that may not be
grieved. One of those categories includes classification issues, which includes:
- institutional and security assignments made at Reception and Evaluation Centers;
- institutional job assignments, except where there may be extenuating medical circumstances
involved; and
- cell, dormitory, or cubicle assignments made within an institution.
Department Policy/Procedure GA-01.12(OP)(8)(a).
This policy, including its limitations regarding grievable issues, comports with due process
requirements. See Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 373, 527 S.E.2d at 752 (Department's grievance procedures
are consistent with due process requirements). Therefore, Because he has not shown that "extenuating
medical circumstances" were involved, Inmate Brown may not grieve the loss of his employment with
Prison Industries.
Regarding Inmate Brown's claims involving the check, Inmate Brown has not raised a cognizable
claim. No constitutional deprivation has been alleged. Although Inmate Brown was briefly denied
access to funds deposited in his Account, the Department acted in accordance with its policy in
withholding his funds for a period of six weeks. See Department Policy/Procedure 700.1-6(6)(b)(1)
("certain types of other checks may be deposited to the Cooper Trust Fund with the stipulation that a
six-week freeze (hold on deposit) will apply from the date of bank deposit.") In addition, the
Department permitted Inmate Brown to draw on his Account after Inmate Brown filed his grievance. At
the time of this Appeal, Inmate Brown had full access to his Account. The only possible relief Inmate
Brown could be seeking is money damages. However, this Division has no authority to award money
damages to any party. See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-300, et. seq.; Calhoun Life Ins. Co. v. Gambrell, 245
S.C. 406, ___, 140 S.E.2d 774, 776 (1965)(an administrative agency is a creation of the legislature and,
as such, possesses only such powers as are conferred, expressly or by reasonable, necessary
implication).
In addition, although he alleges that his funds would earn higher interest in a non-prison account,
Inmate Browns' Account continues to earn interest at a competitive rate. Regardless, inmates are not
entitled to a certain rate of interest on their trust fund accounts.
The Department's Final Decision regarding Inmate Brown's grievance is hereby AFFIRMED.
IV. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Final Decision of the Department is AFFIRMED and the
appeal of Inmate Brown is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
May 23, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
