ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is currently pending before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant
to the South Carolina Department of Corrections' (Respondent or Department) Motion to Dismiss filed on
March 16, 2001. Respondent seeks a dismissal on the grounds that Appellant's grievance does not reach
"constitutional dimensions." In Appellant's grievance, he alleged that the Department's policy which
excludes sex offenders from participating in the Pre-Release program is unconstitutional and should be
changed. In the Department's Final Decision, the Department reiterated that sex offenders are not allowed to
participate in the Pre-Release Program, but encouraged the Appellant to participate in the other classes and
services offered by the institution. Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the ALJD on December 12,
2000. Appellant characterizes the Pre-Release Program as a rehabilitative program to which he is entitled,
and asserts that it is unconstitutional to deny him this fundamental right.
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, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). In Al- Shabazz, the Supreme
Court created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the Department of
Corrections 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 the circuit court
pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act. 338 S.C. at 373, 376, 527 S.E.2d at 752, 754. In its
appellate capacity, the Division is concerned with ensuring that the constitutional rights of the appellants are
not violated. However, the Division has no authority to pass upon the constitutionality of a state statute or
regulation; instead, its constitutionality must be judicially determined. 338 S.C. at 379, 527 S.E.2d at 754, fn
12.
Article XII, Section 2 of the South Carolina Constitution provides that the General Assembly is responsible
for establishing "institutions for the confinement of all persons convicted of . . . crimes. . . ." S.C. Const. Art.
XII, § 2 (1976). In addition, Section 2 charges the General Assembly with providing for "the custody,
maintenance, health, welfare, education, and rehabilitation of the inmates." Id. However, neither Section 2
nor any other constitutional provision creates a duty for the Department to educate or rehabilitate prisoners.
In a 1972 decision, the South Carolina Supreme Court determined that an inmate has no constitutional right
to be rehabilitated by any governmental entity. See McLamore v. State, 257 S.C. 413, 186 S.E.2d 250, cert.
denied, 93 S.Ct. 240, 409 U.S. 934 (1972).
In this case, Inmate Batiste alleges that his constitutional right to be rehabilitated was violated by the
Department's failure to grant him work release. Even if work release were a rehabilitative program, Inmate
Batiste has no constitutional or statutory entitlement to any rehabilitative programs whatsoever.
Furthermore, this Division has no authority to pass upon the constitutionality of a state statute or regulation.
Accordingly, I hereby dismiss Inmate Batiste's appeal with prejudice.
IV. ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Appellant's appeal be dismissed.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
April 20, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina
|
