ORDERS:
ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. ECI 1358-00
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 Jessie Brown contends
that the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) did not follow proper procedures when it
extended his Pre-Hearing Detention on October 31, 2000. Appellant also appeals the Department's November 7, 2000
decision to revoke 240 days of his good-time credit as punishment for the possession of marijuana in violation of DOC
Disciplinary Code § 1.10. Having reviewed the record, applicable law, and the briefs filed by the parties in this matter, I
conclude that the decision of the Department must be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
On November 7, 2000, Appellant filed a grievance with the Department that cited essentially two complaints: (1) Appellant
claims that when the Department extended his Pre-Hearing Detention (PHD) on October 31, 2000, he was not provided
with a copy of DOC form 19-67, the form authorizing the extension of PHD; and (2) Appellant contends that his November
7, 2000 disciplinary conviction for the possession of marijuana should be reversed. The Department denied this grievance
and Appellant brought the instant appeal before the ALJD. On appeal, Appellant again argues that his PHD was
improperly extended and that his November 7, 2000 disciplinary conviction should be reversed.
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 improperly determined his custody status by extending his PHD and impermissibly
revoked 240 days of his good-time credit as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing; 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 case. First, whether or not Appellant received a copy of the
form authorizing the extension of his PHD, Appellant has no valid objection to his continued placement in PHD. Appellant
has no ground upon which to assert a due process objection to his custody status either under the Due Process clause of its
own force, see Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 468 (1983), or under a state law that creates a protected liberty interest. See
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995). Moreover, Appellant has no meritorious challenge to his custody status under
state law, as there is no evidence to suggest that the Department's decision to extend Appellant's PHD was made arbitrarily
or from person bias. See Crowe v. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763, 259 S.E.2d 614 (1979).
Second, Appellant has previously raised his objections to his November 7, 2000 disciplinary conviction in Grievance # ECI
1356-00, and those objections were addressed by the Department in its response to that grievance. See "Warden's Decision
and Reason," Grievance # ECI 1358-00, Inmate Grievance Form, Step 1 ("Your hearing that took place on 11-07-00 was
addressed in ECI Grievance 1356-00, and will not be addressed again."). Therefore, this tribunal will likewise not address
this duplicative appeal of Appellant's November 7, 2000 conviction. Further, even if this tribunal were to consider
Appellant's appeal of that conviction, Appellant has not articulated a single, specific objection to the conviction, either in
the grievance forms submitted to the Department or in the documents filed with the ALJD, for this tribunal to review.
Neither Appellant's objection to the extension of his placement in PHD nor his appeal of his November 7, 2000
disciplinary conviction have merit. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY 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 |
