ORDERS:
ORDER
STATEMENT OF CASE
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD or Division) pursuant to the appeal of Kevin Sanders,
an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (DOC or Department). On March 8, 2001, Sanders was
convicted of violating SCDC Disciplinary Code § 1.10, Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana or Unauthorized Drugs,
Including Prescription Drugs, after pleading not guilty to the charge. As a result of this conviction, the Appellant lost 120
days of "good-time" credit. Sanders filed a grievance with the Department and received the Department's final decision on
July 3, 2001. On July 18, 2001, the Appellant filed this appeal with the Division.
BACKGROUND
On February 28, 2001, the Appellant was administered a drug test at Lieber Correction Institution by Lieutenant Cote. The
test revealed that the Appellant probably had marijuana in his system. Therefore, Lieutenant Cote performed a
confirmation test which tested positive for marijuana. After the incident, Lieutenant Cote completed an Incident Report.
The Appellant was charged with violating SCDC Code § 1.10, Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana or Unauthorized
Drugs, Including Prescription Drugs. The Appellant received written notice of the charges on March 1, 2001.
The hearing was held on March 8, 2001, before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO), who read a narrative of Lieutenant
Cote's Incident Report into the Record. At the Appellant's request, he was provided a counsel substitute. Additionally, at
the Appellant's request, Lieutenant Cote was present at the hearing via telephone. During the hearing, the DHO read a
narrative of Lieutenant Cote's Incident Report into the Record and received testimony from the Appellant and Lieutenant
Cote as evidence. 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 120 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 March 19, 2001 appealing his conviction of violating SCDC Disciplinary Code § 1.10.
On May 22, 2001, the Warden denied the Appellant's grievance. After he appealed the Warden's decision on June 4, 2001,
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 brief, the Appellant alleges that:
1. The DHO was not impartial;
2. The drug test was not conclusive and not administered in accordance with Department policy; and
3. The Warden violated due process because he failed to review this appeal within ninety (90) days and he failed to review
procedural errors and the tape recording of the disciplinary hearing;
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. That 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 120 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 a "major disciplinary hearing" involving "more serious rule violations" comports
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. Id.
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, 135, 276
S.E.2d 304, 306 (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, that 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. (1) 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. 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, 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 the
Appellant was properly administered the drug test and, thereafter, 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
July 22, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. The Appellant contends that his hearing officer was not impartial. However, I find that he failed to establish that claim. |