ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to the appeal of Sidney Mason,
an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (Department). On November 17, 2000, Mason was convicted of
violating SCDC Disciplinary Code 1.10, Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana or Unauthorized Prescription Drugs
after pleading not guilty to the charge. As a result of his conviction, Bradley lost one hundred eighty (180) days of "good-time" credit. Mason filed a grievance with the Department and received the Department's final decision on February 2,
2001. On February 14, 2001, Mason filed this appeal.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2000, the Appellant was administered a random drug test at Perry Correction Institution by Corporal
McDaniel. The Appellant tested positive for marijuana. He then requested a confirmation test be performed which also
tested positive for marijuana.
After the incident, Corporal McDaniel completed an Incident Report and submitted it to his supervisor. The Appellant was
charged with violating SCDC Code 1.10, Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana or Unauthorized Drugs. The
Appellant received written notice of the charges on November 13, 2000. The hearing was held on November 17, 2000,
before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO), who read into the Record a narrative of Corporal McDaniel's Incident
Report. During the hearing, the Appellant was represented by counsel substitute and pleaded not guilty to the charge. At
the conclusion of the hearing, the DHO found the Appellant guilty of violating SCDC Code 1.10 and sanctioned him with
the loss of one hundred eighty (180) days of "good-time" credit. After the hearing, the DHO completed a Major
Disciplinary Report and Hearing Record, which documented the DHO's findings based on the Record.
The Appellant filed a grievance on November 27, 2000, appealing his conviction of violating SCDC 1.10. On December
11, 2000, the Warden denied the Appellant's grievance. After he appealed the Warden's decision on December 12, 2000,
the Department denied his grievance, stating that the evidence supported the conviction and that the sanction imposed was
appropriate for the violation that the Appellant committed. This appeal followed. In his Appellant's Brief, the Appellant
alleges that he passed the first drug test and therefore there was no probable cause to conduct the second test. He also
claims that the results of the confirmation test were not back when he was convicted.
ANALYSIS
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 McNeil v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001) the Division issued an En Banc Order interpreting the breadth of its jurisdiction
pursuant to Al-Shabazz. The decision holds that the Division's appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is limited to two
types of cases: (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.
In this case, the Appellant alleges that the Department excessively revoked one hundred eighty (180) days of good time.
Inmates have a protected liberty interest in their earned statutory good-time credits under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Therefore, when, as here, the Department revokes an inmate's good-time credits as punishment in "major disciplinary
hearings" involving "more serious rule violations," prison officials must provide that inmate with "minimal due process."
Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Consequently, specific administrative procedures must be followed before
depriving an inmate of statutorily granted earned credit, including adequate advance notice of the charges, adequate
opportunity for a hearing in which the inmate can present witnesses and documentary evidence, and an impartial hearing
officer who prepares a written statement of all the evidence presented and the reasons for his decision. Al-Shabazz, 527
S.E.2d at 751, citing Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 2978-82 (1974).
In Al-Shabazz, the Court held that inmates may seek review before this Division to ensure that the Department's revocation
of good-time credits as punishment in "major disciplinary hearings" involving "more serious rule violations" comport with
"minimal due process." The ALJD 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. When reviewing the
Department's decisions in inmate grievance matters, the ALJD sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz Consequently, the
review in these inmate grievance cases is limited to the Record presented. Furthermore, an Administrative Law Judge may
not substitute his judgment for that of an agency unless the agency's determination is arbitrary, affected by error of law or is
clearly erroneous in view of the reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the whole Record. S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-380(A)(6) (1986 & Supp. 2001); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 380, 527 S.E.2d at 756. "'Substantial evidence' is not a mere
scintilla of evidence nor the evidence viewed blindly from one side of the case, but is evidence which, considering the
record as a whole, would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion that the administrative agency reached or must
have reached in order to justify its action." Lark v. Bi-Lo, 276 S.C. 130, 276 S.E.2d 304 (1981). Furthermore, the
possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from the evidence does not prevent an administrative agency's finding
from being supported by substantial evidence. Grant v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 319 S.C. 348, 461 S.E.2d 388
(1995).
Additionally, in Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 105 S.Ct. 2768
(1985), the U.S. Supreme Court held that "the relevant question is whether there is any evidence in the record that could
support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board." Moreover, in Al-Shabazz, the Court underscored that since
prison officials are in the best position to decide inmate disciplinary matters, the Courts and therefore this Division adhere
to a "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).
I find that the Appellant was afforded all process due him pursuant to Al-Shabazz. The Record indicates that the Appellant
received written notice of the charges against him in excess of twenty-four (24) hours prior to a hearing that was held
before an impartial Disciplinary Hearing Officer. At the hearing, the Appellant was given the opportunity to offer
evidence, call witnesses, and confront his accuser. In addition, although not constitutionally required, the Appellant was
afforded the right to counsel substitute to assist him in his defense which he waived. After the DHO determined that the
Appellant was guilty of the charged offense, he prepared a written report detailing the evidence he relied upon and the
penalty assessed in finding the Appellant guilty of the disciplinary infraction. Finally, the Appellant was permitted to appeal
the DHO's decision through the inmate grievance process.
Moreover, I find that there is substantial evidence to support the Appellant's conviction of violating DOC Disciplinary
Code § 1.10, The Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana, or Unauthorized Drugs, Including Prescription Drugs. A
Code 1.10 violation, in part, is: "Any inmate testing positive for any unauthorized drug, refusing to submit to a drug test, or
failing to produce a specimen within three (3) hours as specified in SCDC Policy/Procedure GA-30.03." The Record
clearly supports the facts recited in the "Background" portion of this Order. Those facts establish substantial evidence that
both tests were properly administered and, thereafter, the Appellant tested positive for an "unauthorized drug."
ORDER
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the appeal of the Appellant is DISMISSED and the Final Decision of the
Department is AFFIRMED;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
_________________________________
Ralph K. Anderson, III
Administrative Law Judge
October 28, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina |