ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is currently pending before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) pursuant to the South Carolina
Department of Corrections' (Respondent or Department) Motion to Dismiss filed on December 18, 2000. Respondent
seeks a dismissal on the grounds that the Appellant has received the relief that he requested and, therefore, the claim is
moot.
In Appellant's Step 1 Grievance, Appellant requested that he be advanced to Security Detention Level II because he was
not properly notified of the review of his custody classification which reduced his classification to Security Detention
Level I, the most severe custody level. In Respondent's Motion to Dismiss, Respondent asserts that Appellant's claim is
moot because, since the filing of the grievance, Appellant has been approved for advancement to Security Detention Level
III, the least severe custody level. However, Respondent did not state whether Appellant had actually been transferred to
Security Detention Level III.
In Appellant's Response to the Motion to Dismiss, Appellant asserts that the motion should be denied because he has been
approved for advancement to Security Detention Level III, but has not actually been reduced to this custody level.
However, Appellant does state in his Response that he has been reduced to Security Detention Level II. This is the relief
that Appellant sought in his Step 1 Grievance. Because this tribunal can provide no further relief, this appeal has been
rendered moot.
The South Carolina Supreme Court has stated:
This Court will not pass on moot and academic questions or make an adjudication where there remains no actual
controversy. Wallace v. City of York, S.C., 281 S.E.2d 487 (1981). A case becomes moot when judgment, if rendered,
will have no practical legal effect upon existing controversy. This is true when some event occurs making it impossible for
reviewing Court to grant effectual relief. Such is the situation here. Mathis v. South Carolina State Highway Dept., 260
S.C. 344, 195 S.E.2d 713 (1973).
Jones v. Dillon-Marion Human Resources Development Commission, 277 S.C. 533, 291 S.E.2d 195 (1982); see Dodge v.
Dodge, 332 S.C. 401, 505 S.E.2d 344 (Ct. App. 1998).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
February 27, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |