ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Grievance No. Unknown
I. Introduction
In this Motion to Dismiss, South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) asserts that the appeal by Larry Wright (Wright) should
be dismissed since Wright failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before the DOC. The motion is granted.
II. Analysis
Relief is generally not available to one who has failed to exhaust all administrative remedies. Meredith v. Elliott, 247 S.C. 335, 147
S.E.2d 244 (1966). Indeed, at least one decision holds that where an adequate administrative remedy is available to determine a
question of fact, one must pursue the administrative remedy or be precluded from seeking relief in the courts. Hyde v. South
Carolina Dep't of Mental Health, 314 S.C. 207, 442 S.E.2d 582 (1994). Such a rule is reasonable since the rule is based upon a
policy of orderly procedure which favors a preliminary sifting process, particularly with regard to matters peculiarly within the
competence of a specific administrative authority. DePass v. City of Spartanburg, 234 S.C. 198, 107 S.E.2d 350 (1959), and City
of Columbia v. Abbott, 269 S.C. 508, 238 S.E.2d 177 (1977).
Here, DOC has a unique knowledge of prison circumstances and is best equipped to sift the facts associated with an inmate's
grievance. Further, DOC provides a Step 2 hearing at which evidence is examined and witnesses testify. That hearing forms the
basis for a written determination of the inmate's claim. Wright failed to pursue that administrative step. Thus, this matter is
dismissed for failure to exhaust an available administrative remedy.
III. Order
The motion to dismiss is GRANTED and this matter is ended.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: April 5, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
