South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

William Earl Kelly #137919 vs. SCDOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

William Earl Kelly #137919

South Carolina Department of Corrections




On September 15, 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). More specifically, the Department sets forth that the Appellant has not exhausted his administrative remedies and that, therefore, the Administrative Law Judge Division (Division) lacks jurisdiction to hear this appeal. The Appellant responded to the Department's motion on October 4, 2000.

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, 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. However, this avenue of relief applies only to

all PCR [post-conviction relief] actions filed and all administrative matters in which Department [Department of Corrections] renders a final decision after the date of this opinion [February 14, 2000]. It also shall apply to all cases currently pending in circuit court or before this Court in which the inmate is similarly situated to petitioner, i.e., cases in which Department has decided a noncollateral or administrative matter and the inmate has not had the opportunity to obtain APA review in the manner we have outlined.

Al-Shabazz at 45 (emphasis added).

In this case, the Department has not rendered its final decision regarding inmate grievance number LeeCI-0450-00. Even though the Department may not have timely responded to the Appellant's request for a hearing, the Department's attached Exhibit 1 shows that the Appellant was moved from Lee Correctional Institute to Ridgeland Correctional Institute during the time frames in which the Department was to respond to his appeal. Therefore, the Appellant's records also had to be transferred to Ridgeland Correctional Institute. Accordingly, because the Appellant has not exhausted his available administrative remedies with the Department, this Division does not have jurisdiction to entertain the Appellant's appeal. Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department shall respond to the Appellant's grievance in this matter at the Step 1 level within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this matter is dismissed.



Ralph King Anderson, III

Administrative Law Judge

November 20, 2000

Columbia, South Carolina


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.

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court