South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Leonard Austin #243001 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Leonard Austin #243001

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
01-ALJ-04-00239-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION
Grievance No. ACI 1097-00

I. Introduction



Leonard Austin #243001 (Austin) brings this appeal challenging a decision by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC) which convicted Austin of inciting or creating a disturbance for which he lost 30 days of good time credit. Jurisdiction is invoked in the instant case since this matter is a disciplinary hearing in which Austin was punished by the loss of good time credits, a loss which impacts a created liberty interest. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000); McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001). After a review of the record and the arguments, the DOC decision is AFFIRMED.



II. Scope of Review



In this review, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) acts "in an appellate capacity" and is "restricted to reviewing the decision below." Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 754 (2000). The review must apply the criteria of S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2000). See S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(B) (Supp. 2000) (where an ALJ is directed to conduct a review "in the same manner prescribed in [§ 1-23-380](A)."). Section 1-23-380(A)(6) establishes the following:



The court may reverse or modify the decision if substantial rights of the appellant have been prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are:

(a) in violation of constitutional or statutory provisions;

(b) in excess of the statutory authority of the agency;

(c) made upon unlawful procedure;

(d) affected by other error of law;

(e) clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record; or

(f) arbitrary or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.



In this case, Austin argues that the DOC decision is clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative and substantial evidence on the whole record.



III. Analysis



Substantial Evidence



Austin argues the DOC decision must be reversed since the decision is not supported by the evidence. I cannot agree.



In examining a DOC determination for the presence of evidentiary support, an ALJ must review the matter in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742. In that capacity, an ALJ reviewing factual disputes between DOC and the inmate "will not substitute [the ALJ's] judgment for that of the [DOC Hearing Officer] as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact." S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (Supp. 2000).



Thus, once the facts are established by the Hearing Officer, the ALJ will not re-weigh the evidence in an attempt to come to an independent conclusion on the factual dispute. Rather, the ALJ will rely upon the Hearing Officers factual determinations unless such those determinations are "clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence on the whole record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23- 380(A)(6)(e) (Supp. 2000). In determining if substantial evidence supports the Hearing Officer's factual determinations, the ALJ does not look for "a mere scintilla of evidence nor evidence viewed blindly from one side, but [rather looks for ] evidence which, when considering the record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the agency reached." Palmetto Alliance, Inc. v. South Carolina Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 282 S.C. 430, 432, 319 S.E.2d 695, 696 (1984). Accordingly, if such evidence is present, substantial evidence is present and the factual determinations will not be overturned.



Here, substantial evidence supports the factual determinations made below. The hearing officer had conflicting testimony on whether Austin was involved in the fight. The charging officer was asked repeatedly if he was sure he saw Austin. The officer was confident that he saw Austin swinging his fists at other inmates. While Austin denied involvement and other inmates were of the view that Austin did not participate, the hearing officer was required to determine which witnesses had the greater credibility. I cannot find that the hearing officer was without substantial evidence in reaching the decision that Austin was inciting or creating a disturbance. Such evidence would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that Austin committed the act here in dispute. Thus, substantial evidence supports the DOC decision.





IV. Conclusion



The guilty verdict entered by DOC against Leonard Austin #243001 is AFFIRMED.



AND IT IS SO ORDERED.



____________________________

RAY N. STEVENS

Administrative Law Judge



Dated: April 23, 2002

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court