ORDERS:
ORDER
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Dwayne Curry, an inmate
incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since 1995. In October 1999, Inmate Curry's mother ordered seven
magazines on his behalf from a book company, which were delivered to Allendale Correctional Facility ("Facility") on October 25,
1999 and for which two Department employees signed. However, Inmate Curry alleges he never received the magazines. On
November 30, 1999, Inmate Curry filed a grievance. He received a Final Decision from the Department on May 31, 2000, and filed
this appeal with the Division on June 22, 2000.
II. BACKGROUND
On October 21, 1999, Inmate Curry's mother mailed a $30 money order to a book company for the purchase of seven magazines to
be delivered to Inmate Curry at the Facility. The magazines, four issues of "Black Tail," two issues of "Portfolio," and an issue of
"Black and Stacked," were sent to the Facility from the book company on October 23, 1999. When Inmate Curry did not receive
these magazines, he wrote to the book company, which informed Inmate Curry that the magazines had been shipped on October 23
and provided him with a form indicating that Ann Pernell and Helen Freeman, two Department employees, had signed for them.
Pursuant to Inmate Curry's grievance, the Department conducted an investigation. As proof that he did not receive his magazines,
Inmate Curry submitted to the officer investigating his grievance a number of Requests to Staff Member, in which Inmate Curry
questioned the officers in charge of the unit in which he was confined whether they delivered the magazines to him. None of the
officers claimed to have delivered the magazines to Inmate Curry. Despite the failure of any Department employee to claim that he
or she delivered the magazines to Inmate Curry, the Department determined that there was no evidence of negligence on the part of
any Department employee and denied Inmate Curry's request for restitution or return of his mother's $30. This appeal followed.
III. 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. In its appellate capacity, the
Division is primarily concerned with ensuring that the appellants receive all procedural process they are due.
"The requirements of procedural due process apply only to the deprivation of interests encompassed by the Fourteenth Amendment's
protection of liberty and property." Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750, citing Board of Regents of State Colleges v.
Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701 (1972). This guarantee of due process is extended only to deprivations of life, liberty, and property
resulting from deliberate decisions of government officials. Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 330, 106 S. Ct. 662, 664 (1986), overruling Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908 (1981). Therefore, because mere negligence "cannot work a deprivation in
the constitutional sense," a property loss resulting from the negligent act of a state official is not actionable under the Due Process
Clause. Id.
There is little doubt that Inmate Curry did not receive the magazines his mother ordered for him, despite the Department's attempts to
argue otherwise. However, while the Department's failure to deliver the magazines to Inmate Curry may well constitute a tort
cognizable under the South Carolina Tort Claims Act, codified at S.C. Code Ann. § 15-78-10, et seq., (Supp. 1998), that failure does
not "work a deprivation in a constitutional sense." Therefore, because this Division will not intercede in internal prison matters
absent an inmate complaint of an infringement reaching "constitutional dimensions," see Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 382, 527 S.E.2d at
757, I affirm the Department's final decision.
IV. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Appellant's appeal is DENIED, and the Final Decision of the Department is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
Post Office Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
October 13, 2000
Columbia, South Carolina |
