ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Introduction
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Keith Johnson, an
inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") until January 9, 2001. In his appeal, Johnson
complained that the Department violated his constitutional rights when it found him guilty of a prison rules violation and
gave him a verbal reprimand. On July 23, 2001, the Department moved to dismiss Johnson's case on the ground that
Johnson's appeal was mooted by his release. For reason other than that proposed by the Department, Johnson's appeal is
dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Analysis
On September 5, 2001, the Division issued an En Banc Order in McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001). The decision holds that the Division's appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is
limited to two types of cases: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison officials have erroneously calculated his
sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status; and (2) cases in which the Department has taken an inmate's created
liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing.
In this case, Johnson asserts that his rights were violated when the Department gave him a verbal reprimand as punishment
for violating a Department rule. The statutory right to sentence-related credits is a protected liberty interest under the
Fourteenth Amendment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 369-370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. However, no liberty interest is implicated when an inmate is faced with lesser penalties such as the
loss of television, canteen, or telephone privileges. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 372, 527 S.E.2d at 751, fn.8. Certainly
a verbal reprimand falls into the category of "lesser penalties."
The Department did not infringe a liberty interest when it punished Johnson by reprimanding him. Accordingly, no
jurisdiction exists in the Division to decide this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Johnson's appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 12, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
