ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
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).
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.
However, 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). A party who is aggrieved is one who "is injured in a legal sense; one who has suffered an injury to person or property."
Bivens, 173 S.E.2d at 152, citing Parker v. Brown, 195 S.C. 35, 10 S.E.2d 625. The word "aggrieved" refers to a substantial
grievance, "a denial of some personal or property right or the imposition on a party of a burden or obligation." Id.
There is no evidence that the Appellant was substantially aggrieved by the actions of the Department in this grievance. The Appellant
filed this grievance on or about March 24, 2000, in which he requested that "[a] 'Memorandum' be drawn up to lay down the Mail
Room procedures and correct the herein problems ASAP and a[sic] alternate solution to when these rules are not followed and that no
retaliation be taken to the verbalizing of my complaint." More specifically, the Appellant has numerous complaints regarding the
handling and receiving of mail at Perry Correctional Institute. The Department set forth that the Perry Correctional Institute
mailroom is in compliance with SCDC Policy PS-10-08(OP).
Based on the foregoing, I conclude that the Appellant's complaint(s) do not rise to the level of a "substantial grievance" under the Al-Shabazz decision.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that 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. |
