ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
GRIEVANCE NO. PCI-0101-00
On July 14, 2000, the Respondent South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) filed a motion to dismiss this
matter on the grounds that the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) does not have jurisdiction over this appeal
because Appellant is not an aggrieved party and the matter appealed does not constitute a substantial grievance. The
Deparment seeks a dismissal under SCRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, SCRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim, and Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). Appellant did not oppose this motion.
In general, "[o]nly a person aggrieved by a ruling may appeal." Burns v. Gardner, 328 S.C. 608, 617, 493 S.E.2d 356 (Ct.
App. 1997) (citing rules of appellate procedure); Bivens v. Knight, 254 S.C. 10, 173 S.E.2d 150 (1970) ("The right of
review is restricted to persons or parties aggrieved by the decision below."). The court in Burns stated that:
A person is "aggrieved by the judgment or decree when it operates on his rights of
property or bears directly upon his interest, the word aggrieved referring to a
substantial grievance, a denial of some personal or property right or the imposition
on a party of a burden or obligation."
Id. at 617, citing Bivens, 254 S.C. at 13 ("A party . . . cannot appeal from a decision which does not affect his interest . . .
.").
The S.C. Court of Appeals has expounded on this proposition and stated that:
a [party] cannot appeal or prosecute a writ of error from or to a judgment, order, or decree in his own favor, since he is not
aggrieved thereby.
Wilson v. Southern Ry., Carolina Div.., 123 S.C. 399, 115 S.E.2d 356 (Ct. App. 1997) (citations omitted). The Court in Wilson stated that:
where a finding or verdict is favorable in form to [the appealing] party but does not give him all he is entitled to, or is
otherwise prejudicial to his legal rights, the aggrieved party should present that question to the trial court in the first
instance, and the appeal should be taken from the refusal to set aside or correct the verdict.
Id.
In this matter, Appellant filed a grievance on or about January 19, 2000 that he be placed in protective custody because of a
death threat from another inmate. The Department placed Appellant in security detention status and stated that it would
reconsider the grievance if additional information could be provided to support placement in protective custody. Appellant
subsequently received his protective custody review at which the Department granted Appellant protective custody;
however, Appellant refused to enter protective custody. It appears that Appellant is refusing the relief that he sought with
the underlying grievance. Moreover, Appellant did not submitted any evidence to controvert that he refused to enter
protective custody. Accordingly, Appellant is not aggrieved, as construed by the courts in this State. E.g., Bivens, 254 S.C.
at 14; Burns, 328 S.C. at 617.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the above-captioned matter be DISMISSED on the grounds that Appellant is not an
aggrieved party and his appeal does not constitute a substantial grievance.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
August 25, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
