ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Andre Townsend, an inmate
incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since July 17, 1997. On July 26, 2000, while housed in D-Dorm at
Perry Correctional Institution ("Facility"), Inmate Townsend filed a grievance complaining that air ventilation in the Facility was
inadequate. The Department denied his grievance, stating that the Administrative Segregation Units' flaps are kept closed except
under certain conditions due to security concerns. Additionally, the Department informed Inmate Townsend that SMU is not
equipped with a ventilation system and has no plans for modification. Dissatisfied with the Department's response, Inmate Townsend
filed this appeal with the Division on November 22, 2000, pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by the South Carolina Supreme
Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000).
"South Carolina courts, like the federal courts, require a justiciable case or controversy before any decision on the merits can be
reached." Lennon v. S.C. Coastal Council, 330 S.C. 414, 417-8, 498 S.E.2d 906, 908 (Ct. App. 1998). I find that this case is not
justiciable because Inmate Townsend has failed to allege an actual injury. Inmate Townsend alleges that he is asthmatic and suffers
from the improper air circulation in the Facility. However, he does not provide any documentation of actual injury or proof that the
Department failed to provide adequate medical care. "No person may invoke the judicial power to determine the validity of
executive or legislative action unless he has sustained, or is in immediate danger of sustaining, prejudice therefrom." Baird v.
Charleston County, 333 S.C. 519, 511 S.E.2d 69, 75 (1999). Although Inmate Townsend alleges that he suffers from asthma, Inmate
Townsend does not allege that he has suffered any asthma attacks or respiratory complications due to the allegedly improper air
circulation. Therefore, I find that Inmate Townsend has presented no actual controversy.
In the alternative, Inmate Townsend's claim has been rendered moot by his transfer to Evans Correctional Institute on September 20,
2000, as he requested. Therefore, Appellant has received the relief sought under this appeal. 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).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Department's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Inmate Townsend's appeal
is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
P.O. Box 11667
Columbia, South Carolina 29211-1667
April 6, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
