ORDERS:
Grievance No. KER 701-02
ORDER DENYING CHALLENGE TO CUSTODY STATUS
I. Introduction
This matter is a challenge by Ernest Steele, #59201 (Steele) to a custody classification imposed by South Carolina
Department of Corrections (DOC). Having reviewed the record, applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this
matter, I conclude the decision of the Department must be affirmed.
II. Analysis
In general, an inmate may appeal a final decision of DOC to the ALJD if the matter is "non-collateral" (i.e., a matter in
which an inmate does not challenge the validity of a conviction or sentence). Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527
S.E.2d 742 (2000). More particular to the instant case, the ALJD has jurisdiction over inmate appeals that assert an error
has been made by DOC in determining an inmate's custody status. McNeilv. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, No.
00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (S.C. Admin. Law Judge. Div. Sept. 5, 2001) (en banc). In the instant case Steele argues DOC has
wrongly refused to upgrade his custody status due to an error made by DOC related to an escape attempt.
When reviewing a DOC custody decision, the ALJD sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 377, 527 S.E.2d
at 754. Thus, the review is confined to the record Id. 527 S.E.2d at 750. In making the review, the ALJ must be mindful
that a traditional "hands off" approach exists on discretionary decisions resulting from internal prison policies. Al-Shabazz,
338 S.C. at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757; see also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional
"hands off" approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison policy). However, such a deferential standard of
review does not preclude a reversal of the DOC determination. Rather, the ALJ conducts a review of DOC's actions to
ensure the inmate grievance is addressed in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 383, 527
S.E.2d at 757. In this case Steele argues the decision of DOC is arbitrary since it is founded upon a mistake of fact.
Our Supreme Court has held that an inmate may challenge his custody status if "prison officials have acted arbitrarily,
capriciously, or from personal bias" in determining his custody status. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 381, 527 S.E.2d at 756
(citing Crowev. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763, 259 S.E.2d 614 (1979)). But, while review of these Crowe-based claims is not
"improper or unavailable," id., the level of scrutiny devoted to such claims is limited.
Here, DOC investigated the matter to determine if the escape was a Class I or a lesser escape denoted as a Class II. The
record establishes that DOC concluded that the escape lasted for approximately 18 months and thus warranted a
classification of Class I. Accordingly, where, as here, the record suggests the DOC decision involves a "good faith exercise
of the discretionary power of the prison officials in the maintenance of order, discipline, and security among the prison
population," Crowe, 273 S.C. at 764, 259 S.E.2d at 615, the DOC decision will not be disturbed on appeal.
III. Conclusion
The claim raised by Ernest Steele, #59201 does not result in a change of custody status since DOC has not acted arbitrarily
or from personal bias in denying the custody status requested. Accordingly, DOC's custody decision is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 16, 2003
Columbia, South Carolina |
