ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
On September 27, 2000, the South Carolina Department of Corrections (Department) filed a motion to dismiss this matter. The
Department moved to dismiss the Appellant's claim under SCRCP 12(b)(1), lack of jurisdiction over the claim; SCRCP 12(b)(6),
failure of Appellant to allege facts sufficient to state a claim; and Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (S.C. 2000).
The Administrative Law Judge Division's (Division) jurisdiction to hear this matter is derived entirely from the decision of the South
Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, Op. No. 24995 (S.C. Sup. Ct. filed February 14, 2000) (Shearouse Adv. Sh. No. 6 at
21), 2000 WL 156547. In Al-Shabazz, the Supreme Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final
decisions of the Department 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 circuit court pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act.
The right of appeal is accorded only to a "party aggrieved." Also, a party cannot appeal a ruling unless he has been "substantially"
aggrieved by that ruling. Bivens v. Knight, 254 S.C. 10, 173 S.E.2d 150 (1970); See also S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A) (judicial
review available to parties who are aggrieved by a final decision of an agency). Although there are exceptional cases, the general rule
is that a plaintiff or defendant 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. See Wilson v. Southern Ry., Carolina Division, et al., 123 S.C. 399, 115 S.E. 764 (1923). A
[p]erson is "aggrieved" by judgment or decree, as requirement for right to appeal, when judgment or decree operates on his rights of
property or bears directly upon his interest and constitutes substantial grievance, denial of some personal or property right, or
imposition on a party of some burden or obligation. Burns v. Gardner, 328 S.C. 608, 493 S.E.2d 356 (S.C. App. 1997).
The Appellant did not provide adequate evidence that he was he was substantially aggrieved in this matter. While the Appellant is
alleging that the Department lost one of his legal papers while making copies for him, he has not provided sufficient evidence to this
effect. To the contrary, the Department provided written documentation that the Appellant placed the legal documents in an envelope
and mispresented that the envelope contained twelve (12) pages as opposed to eleven (11) pages. This is evidenced in the hand-written (initialed) change to the Appellant's debit account sheet. See Attached Memorandum dated February 10, 2000 and SCDC
Form 10-14. Furthermore, in his Appellant's Brief, the Appellant is requesting the following relief:
That do[sic] to this incident of miss[sic]-handling legal paper and inappropriate behavior of Ms. McCabe and Ms. White of not
following policy/procedure of handling legal document. [sic] Request that both be put under suspension 4 to 6 months without pay for
they[sic] actions involved in this case. Also Appellant request[sic] $150.00 fee, do[sic] to lost[sic] of Appellant legal document.
However, while the Appellant is requesting that employees of the Department be suspended without pay and that the Appellant be
given monetary compensation, this relief does not rise to the level of a substantial grievance for the purposes of Al-Shabazz.
Therefore, based on the foregoing
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss is granted and that this appeal is hereby dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_____________________________
Ralph King Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
November 20, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina
APPEAL RIGHTS
You are entitled to appeal this final order of the Administrative Law Judge Division by filing a petition for judicial review in circuit
court within thirty (30) days after receipt of this order. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (Supp. 1999). The petition may be filed in any
circuit court as long as the chosen forum is neither arbitrary nor unreasonable, and provided that no statute controls venue in a
particular type of case. The review of the administrative law judge's order must be confined to the record. The reviewing tribunal
may affirm the decision or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or modify the decision if the substantive rights
of the petitioner have been prejudiced because the finding, conclusion, or decision is: (a) in violation of constitutional or statutory
provisions; (b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency; (c) made upon unlawful procedure; (d) affected by other error of
law; (e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or (f) arbitrary or capricious
or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion. |
