SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Roy Lindsey, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department").

Lindsey claims that the Department has erred by miscalculating his sixty-two year, six month sentence. Specifically, in his Brief Lindsey makes the following arguments: that any good time taken before August 20, 1997, should be restored; that all good time taken on August 20, 1997, should be restored; that he should be credited with 20 days of good time for each month served in an Oklahoma prison pursuant to Section 24-13-210 of the S.C. Code Annotated (1976); and that four offenses should be deleted from his record.

The Department failed to address any of these specific issues in its Brief . ⁽¹⁾ Instead, the Department merely cites to Exhibit 1 and states that there is "substantial evidence on the whole record" which supports the final agency decision. However, the Department cites no such evidence in its Brief, instead relying on this tribunal to wade through the lengthy Exhibit to find the evidence for itself. Further, although these issues were raised during the grievance process, the Department failed to provide any findings or conclusions as to any of them in its Final Decision. ⁽²⁾

Lindsey's allegation that all good time taken before August 20, 1997, should be restored was raised during the grievance process, giving the Department the opportunity to address it. However, I find that the Department's response on the Step 2 form wholly lacking, in that there is neither finding nor conclusion set forth as to why Lindsey's argument is without merit. Nor is there any response in the Department's Brief, unless it is buried deep within the computer printouts attached to the Brief as exhibits. This tribunal has no intentions of sifting through the evidence itself because the Department failed to provide a Brief that adequately sets forth the factual support for its position. Therefore, this matter is remanded to the Department to respond to Lindsey with findings and conclusions on this issue. ⁽³⁾

As to the good time taken on August 20, 1997, this matter was at issue in another appeal filed with the Division by Lindsey and was remanded to the Department on November 8, 2001. ⁽⁴⁾ Therefore, I find the issue is not properly before this tribunal at this time.

The Petitioner asserts that he is entitled to 20 days of good time credit for each month he served in prison in Oklahoma under Section 24-13-210 of the South Carolina Code Annotated (1976). However, a reading of this section reveals that the inmate must be in the custody of the South Carolina Department of Corrections to receive such credits. As a matter of law, therefore, Lindsey's request must be denied.

Lindsey requests that the four offenses listed "on the top of Exhibit 2" be removed from his record. There is nothing set forth in the decision of the responsible official on the Step 2 Form which makes specific findings and conclusions as to this issue. ⁽⁵⁾ Therefore, this matter is remanded

to the Department to respond to Lindsey with findings and conclusions on this issue. ⁽⁶⁾

All other issues which may have been raised by Lindsey during the grievance process not addressed in his Brief are deemed abandoned.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department's Final Decision denying Lindsey good-time credit for time he was incarcerated in Oklahoma is AFFIRMED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issue of lost good-time credit on August 20, 1997 is not properly before this tribunal and is therefore DENIED;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the issues of lost good-time credit before August 20, 1997 and the four offenses listed on Exhibit 2 of Lindsey's grievance are remanded to the Department for the Department to make specific findings and conclusions, with the right reserved unto Lindsey to file another appeal should he be dissatisfied with the results; and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all issues raised by Lindsey during the grievance process not argued in his Brief are deemed abandoned.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________________________________

C. DUKES SCOTT

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE

December 6, 2001

Columbia, South Carolina

1. The Department filed its Brief prior to the Appellant making in difficult, if not impossible, for it to adequately address the specific issues raised by Lindsey.

2. The Final Decision and Reason of the Responsible Official merely states that the record had been reviewed and verified, and that Lindsey's sentencing good time credits and projected release date are correct.

3. There is a strong argument that the Department should simply be reversed on this issue. See Porter v. Public Service Commission, 333 S.C. 12, 507 S.E.2d 328 (1998) (the court will not, sua sponte, search the record for substantial evidence supporting an agency decision when that agency's order inadequately sets forth the agency's findings of fact and reasoning.) However, as these cases are relatively new to the Division, I believe that a remand is more appropriate at this time.

4. See Lindsey v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00023-AP (November 8, 2001).

5. Again, the Final Decision and Reason of the Responsible Official merely states that the record had been reviewed and verified and that Lindsey's sentencing good time credits and projected release date is correct.

6. See footnote 3.