ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. PCI 1185-00
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to the decision of the South
Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). Appellant Shabaka S. Makhu
contends that unknown officials of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) have arbitrarily,
covertly, and illegally seized his earned "good-time" credits and that, in reviewing his grievance on that count, the
Department is guilty of malfeasance by not conducting a conscientious investigation of his claims. Having reviewed the
record, applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I conclude that the decision of the Department to
deny Appellant's vague and meritless grievance must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On August 14, 2000, Appellant filed a Step 1 grievance form alleging that his good-time credits were being seized in an
"arbitrary, covert, and illegal" manner contrary to DOC Policy OP-22.14, S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-210(d) (Supp. 2001),
and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Unsatisfied with the warden's response to this
grievance, Appellant filed a Step 2 grievance alleging that the Department was guilty of malfeasance for failing to conduct
a "conscientious investigation" into his grievance. Unsatisfied with the Department's response to this grievance, Appellant
brought the instant appeal before the ALJD.
ANALYSIS
In Al-Shabazz, the South Carolina Supreme Court held that inmates may seek review of final decisions of the Department
in certain "non-collateral" or administrative matters (i.e., those matters in which an inmate does not challenge the validity
of a conviction or sentence) by appealing those decisions to the ALJD pursuant to the South Carolina Administrative
Procedures Act (APA). Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 376, 527 S.E.2d at 754. In McNeil v. South Carolina Department of
Corrections, a majority of the judges of the ALJD, sitting en banc, held that this tribunal's jurisdiction to hear inmate
appeals under Al-Shabazz is limited to: (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. McNeil v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, No.
00-ALJ-04-00336-AP, slip op. at 4-5 (S.C. Admin. Law Judge. Div. Sept. 5, 2001) (en banc). In the case at hand,
Appellant contends that the Department has improperly taken his good-time credits; accordingly, this tribunal has
jurisdiction over this matter.
When reviewing the Department's decisions in inmate grievance matters, the ALJD sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 377, 527 S.E.2d at 754. Consequently, this tribunal's review of inmate appeals is confined to the
record presented, id., and its inquiry into these matters is primarily concerned with ensuring that the Department has
granted aggrieved inmates the process they are due when their constitutional rights are implicated. Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at
750; McNeil, No. 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP, at 5 ("[O]ur review is limited solely to the determination of whether the
Department granted 'minimal due process' in reaching [its] decisions . . . ."). Further, recognizing that prison officials are
in the best position to decide inmate disciplinary matters, this tribunal will adhere to the traditional "hands off" approach to
internal prison disciplinary policies and procedures when reviewing inmate appeals under the APA. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C.
at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757; see also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional "hands off"
approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison discipline and policy). However, notwithstanding this
deferential standard of review, this tribunal must conduct meaningful review of the Department's actions to ensure that
inmate grievances are addressed in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 383, 527 S.E.2d at
757.
However, there is little for this tribunal to review in the present appeal. Both Appellant's grievance and his appeal before
the Division are vague and meritless. His bald accusation that his good-time credit is being illegally seized by unknown
DOC officials is woefully unspecific and wholly unsubstantiated. Further, his allegation that the Department failed to
conduct a proper investigation of his unfounded accusations is plainly without merit. Moreover, it should be noted that
Appellant's lack of good-time credits is not due to the illegal seizure of his credits by unknown Department officials, but
rather is the result of the Department's revocation of and Appellant's failure to earn those credits because of Appellant's
numerous disciplinary convictions. (1)
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's denial of Appellant's grievance is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
June 21, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. Appellant has been convicted of eighty disciplinary offenses since his incarceration with the Department began in 1994.
As punishment for these convictions, the Department is entitled by Department policy, State law, and the United States
Constitution to revoke Appellant's earned good-time credits. |