SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Christopher Odom, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since April 9, 1998. On January 12, 2000, Inmate Odom was convicted of Threatening to Inflict Harm on an Employee, Department Disciplinary Code 1.04, and Refusing or Failing to Obey Orders, Disciplinary Code 2.13, after an incident involving a Department corrections officer on December 29, 1999. As a result of his convictions, Inmate Odom lost 120 days of good-time credit and was placed on cell restriction for 45 days.

Inmate Odom filed a grievance with the Department on January 14, 2000, and received the Department's final decision on May 17, 2000. On June 14, 2000, Inmate Odom filed this appeal. The Department filed the Record on Appeal on August 7, 2000. Inmate Odom filed his brief on August 24, 2000. The Department filed its brief on October 6, 2000.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On December 29, 1999, at approximately 11:30 a.m., Inmate Clifton Mitchell, Inmate Odom's cell mate, spotted a ring of keys on the desk of the officer on duty in their dorm. Inmate Mitchell told the duty officer, Jennifer Russell, that the keys belonged to Inmate Odom. Officer Russell then instructed Inmate Mitchell to tell Inmate Odom to come to the desk and see if the keys were his. Shortly thereafter, Inmate Odom approached Officer Russell's desk and took the ring of keys without saying a word to Officer Russell. Officer Russell instructed Inmate Odom to return the keys until he could prove they were his. Inmate Odom became very upset and told Officer Russell that they were his keys. Officer Russell again instructed Inmate Odom to return the keys. In a loud voice and with clinched fists, Inmate Odom came within inches of Officer Russell's face. Inmate Odom told her that the keys were his and that he did not have to listen to her because he had a child her age. Officer Russell again directed Inmate Odom to return the keys. Inmate Odom in fact returned the keys and exited the office.

Immediately after the incident, Officer Russell completed an Incident Report in which she detailed her encounter with Inmate Odom. In addition, Officer Russell completed a Disciplinary Offense Report, again detailing her encounter with Inmate Odom and charging him with Threatening to Inflict Harm on an Employee and Refusing or Failing to Obey Orders. The Report was then forwarded to Officer Russell's supervisor, who determined that a "major" hearing regarding the incident would be held. That same day, Inmate Odom was placed in pre-hearing detention ("PHD"), a heightened custody status, where he received written notice ⁽¹⁾ of the charge.

On January 4, 2000, Inmate Odom was notified that his hearing would be held the following day. Prison officials, however, sought and received an extension to hold the hearing so that Inmate Odom would have an opportunity to meet with his assigned counsel substitute prior to the hearing. On January 12, 2000, Inmate Odom was brought before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer ("DHO") on the two charges. During the hearing, Inmate Odom was represented by counsel substitute. Although Officer Russell did not appear during the hearing to testify, her Report was accepted into evidence. In addition, the DHO permitted Inmate Odom to testify regarding the incident. Instead of offering any facts that contradicted Officer Russell's Report, Inmate Odom repeatedly argued that he never received notice of the charges and that his hearing was not held within the requisite time period. The DHO addressed Inmate Odom's arguments by explaining that he had refused to sign the written notice of the charges and that his refusal was witnessed by two Department employees. The DHO also informed Inmate Odom that an extension had been approved to hold his hearing on that date. When Inmate Odom continued to argue rather belligerently, the DHO was forced to have Inmate Odom removed from the hearing.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO found Inmate Odom guilty of the two charges and imposed a penalty of a 120-day loss of good time and a 45-day cell confinement. That same day, Inmate Odom was informed of the DHO's decision via Form 19-70, Disciplinary Hearing Results Notification, and the attached Major Disciplinary Report and Hearing Record ("Hearing Record"), which was prepared by the DHO.

Inmate Odom filed a grievance on January 14, 2000, appealing his convictions on the basis that he had not received his copies of any of the documents he was entitled to receive. The Department responded, stating that Inmate Odom had received all requisite documents, except for the notice of continuance, which Inmate Odom refused to accept. On March 1, 2000, Inmate Odom appealed the Department's decision, reiterating his January 14 arguments. On May 17, 2000, Inmate Odom received the Department's Final Decision denying his grievance. In that Final Decision, the Department informed Inmate Odom that he had the right to appeal its decision pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. This appeal followed.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. Dep't 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 (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. 2000); 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 Odom was afforded all process due him pursuant to Al-Shabazz. Despite his arguments to the contrary, the Record indicates that Inmate Odom received written notice of the charge in excess of twenty-four hours prior to his hearing. That hearing was held before an impartial hearing officer and Inmate Odom was able, through counsel substitute, to offer evidence, even though he refused to do so. That Inmate Odom's accuser was unavailable at his hearing is of no constitutional consequence; an inmate charged with a disciplinary violation has no constitutional right to cross-examine his accuser. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 567-68. In addition, although he disputes it, Inmate Odom did receive a copy of the Hearing Record informing him of his convictions based on the charging officer's report and his resulting punishment. After his conviction, Inmate Odom filed a grievance and received a prompt response from his warden, which Inmate Odom then appealed to the Department. In its denial of his appeal, the Department informed Inmate Odom that he had the right to appeal the Department's final decision under the Administrative Procedures Act. Clearly, with respect to Inmate Odom's conviction of the charges of Threatening to Inflict Harm on an Employee and Refusing to Obey Orders, 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 Odom's conviction of Threatening to Inflict Harm on an Employee and Refusing to Obey Orders. In Officer Russell's Report, she stated that Inmate Odom took a set of keys from her desk and refused to give them back. In addition, Officer Russell stated that Inmate Odom got in her face with his fists clenched and told her in a threatening manner that he did not have to listen to her because he had a child her age. During the hearing, Inmate Odom offered no evidence that he did not behave exactly as described by Officer Russell and instead argued rather belligerently that he had not received any notice of the charges. With respect to the documents Inmate Odom alleges he did not receive, the Record reflects that he did receive all documents he was entitled to receive. Therefore, I affirm the Department's final decision regarding Inmate Odom's conviction.ORDER

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Final Decision of the Department is affirmed.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the appeal of Inmate Odom is dismissed.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

MARVIN F. KITTRELL

Chief Administrative Law Judge

July 25, 2001