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:
Charles Chambers #220245 vs. DOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Charles Chambers #220245

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
03-ALJ-04-00567-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

ORDERS:

ORDER
GRIEVANCE NO. MCI 0080-03

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 Charles Chambers appeals the decision of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC or Department) to revoke ninety days of his “good-time” credit as punishment for testing positive for the use 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 April 9, 2003, Sergeant Zuan Cook administered an OnTrak drug test on Appellant based upon reasonable suspicion that he was using drugs in violation of DOC policy. The test returned a positive result for marijuana. A subsequent confirmation test also indicated the presence of marijuana in Appellant’s system. Based upon these positive test results, Appellant was charged with violating DOC Disciplinary Code § 1.13, Use or Possession of Narcotics, Marijuana or Unauthorized Drugs, Including Prescription Drugs.

A hearing of this charge was held before a DOC Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) on April 18, 2003. At the close of the hearing, the DHO found Appellant guilty of the charge against him and revoked ninety days of his good-time credit as punishment for the offense. Appellant appealed his disciplinary conviction to the Department and then to this tribunal. On appeal, Appellant contends that his disciplinary conviction was obtained in violation of his due process rights, as the Department did not present sufficient physical evidence of the drug test at the disciplinary hearing.

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 by appealing those decisions to the ALJD pursuant to the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 376, 527 S.E.2d at 754. The Court further found that the Division’s jurisdiction to hear such matters is “typically” limited to cases where an inmate is disciplined and the punishment imposed affects the inmate’s state-created liberty interests and cases where an inmate believes the Department has erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status. Id. at 369-370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Subsequently, in Sullivan v. S.C. Dep’t of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d 124 (2003), the Court held that, under Al-Shabazz, the ALJD also has jurisdiction to hear cases where an inmate challenges a condition of his confinement that implicates a state-created liberty interest. Footnote Id. at 443, 586 S.E.2d at 127. In the case at hand, Appellant contends that the Department improperly revoked ninety 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; Sullivan, 355 S.C. at 443, 586 S.E.2d at 127. 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 other internal prison affairs 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.

In the present case, Appellant contends that the Department’s decision to revoke his good-time credit was made in violation of his due process rights. Because inmates have a protected liberty interest in their earned statutory good-time credits under the Fourteenth Amendment, they are entitled to “minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the Due Process clause to insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). Thus, where, as here, an inmate faces the revocation of good-time credits as punishment in a disciplinary hearing, prison officials must provide that inmate with certain procedural safeguards. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Footnote These procedural safeguards include:

(1) that advance written notice of the charge be given to the inmate at least twenty-four hours before the hearing; (2) that factfinders must prepare a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons for the disciplinary action; (3) that the inmate should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, provided there is no undue hazard to institutional safety or correctional goals; (4) that counsel substitute (a fellow inmate or a prison employee) should be allowed to help illiterate inmates or in complex cases an inmate cannot handle alone; and (5) that the persons hearing the matter, who may be prison officials or employees, must be impartial.

Id. at 371, 527 S.E.2d at 751 (paraphrasing Wolff). Beyond these procedural requirements, the United States Supreme Court has held that the revocation of an inmate’s good-time credits does not comport with Due Process unless “there [is] some evidence from which the conclusion of the [prison official] could be deduced.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Footnote Thus, if the Department affords the inmate a Wolff-type hearing and has at least some evidence in the record to support its decision, the Department’s revocation of an inmate’s good-time credits satisfies the requirements of due process.

In the disciplinary proceedings underlying the instant appeal, Appellant was afforded all the process due him pursuant to Wolff and Al-Shabazz. The record indicates that Appellant received written notice of the charges against him in excess of twenty-four hours prior to a hearing that was held before an impartial Disciplinary Hearing Officer. On the notice form, Appellant indicated that he did not want his accuser to be present at the hearing of the charge. At the hearing, Appellant was given the opportunity, through a counsel substitute, to offer evidence and call witnesses in his defense. The record reflects that Appellant was found guilty of using marijuana in violation of DOC Disciplinary Code § 1.10, based on the written report of Sergeant Cook, including the written report of the results of the OnTrak drug test, and a written statement to that effect was prepared by the hearing officer. After his conviction, Appellant filed a grievance and received a prompt response from his warden, which Appellant then appealed to the Department. In its denial of his appeal, the Department informed Appellant of his right to appeal the Department’s final decision under the APA.

Further, there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the decision reached by the Department. The Department’s failure to produce physical evidence of Appellant’s drug test at the hearing does not render the conviction invalid. The written report of Sergeant Cook, the person who administered the drug test, is sufficient evidence to support the DHO’s finding that Appellant tested positive for using marijuana. Moreover, the production of physical evidence is generally not required at an inmate disciplinary hearing. See, e.g., Barker v. State, 437 So. 2d 1375 (Ala. Crim. App. 1983).

The Department provided Appellant with the due process required by the Fourteenth Amendment before revoking his sentence-related credits as punishment in a disciplinary proceeding. Accordingly, the Department’s decision to deny Appellant’s grievance is affirmed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Department’s denial of Appellant’s grievance is AFFIRMED.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED.

JOHN D. GEATHERS

Administrative Law Judge


March 5, 2004

Columbia, South Carolina


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2024 South Carolina Administrative Law Court