Opinion
Opinion No. 26270.
Submitted January 18, 2007.
Filed February 20, 2007.
Appeal from Richland County, James R. Barber, Circuit Court Judge.
REVERSEDJames Furtick, pro se, of Bennettsville, for Appellant.
Barton J. Vincent, Deputy General Counsel, of Columbia, for Respondent.
This is a direct appeal from the circuit court's order affirming the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) dismissal of appellant James Furtick's prison grievance matter. We reverse.
FACTS
In 2001, when Furtick was an inmate at Lee Correctional Institution, the Department of Corrections (DOC) reprimanded him for possessing contraband. As a result of the reprimand, Furtick did not earn his good time credit for the month of the infraction. Furtick also contends that his earned work credit level was reduced, resulting in a loss of approximately 43 days per year. Thus, Furtick alleges that because of the contraband conviction, his predicted max-out date changed from March 5, 2010 to September 29, 2010.
According to Furtick, DOC guards entered his cell and seized numerous items of property, including his typewriter, various office supplies, and bleach. It appears the possession of contraband rule infraction was based on the bleach.
Furtick appealed the denial of his grievance to the ALJ Division (ALJD), and the DOC moved to dismiss the action based on a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Finding that Furtick's reprimand did not "inevitably affect the duration" of his sentence, the ALJ dismissed the matter. The ALJ stated that although an inmate has a liberty interest in earned good time credits, he has no liberty interest in good time credits which "he is unable to earn or fails to earn as a result of a rule violation."
Furtick appealed to the circuit court. The circuit court found there was "no loss of a protected liberty interest" because Furtick "only received a reprimand," and therefore affirmed the ALJ's decision that there was no jurisdiction over the claim. The circuit court also stated that Furtick "did not lose any good time credits; therefore this appeal does not implicate a liberty interest."
ISSUE
Did the circuit court err in finding the ALJD lacked jurisdiction over Furtick's claim?
DISCUSSION
Furtick argues that the circuit court erred by finding that: (1) the ALJD lacked subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) there was no loss of a protected liberty interest. We agree.
In Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000), this Court held that inmates could pursue appellate review in the ALJD of certain grievance decisions made by the DOC. The ALJD obtains subject matter jurisdiction over an inmate's claim when the claim "implicates a state-created liberty interest." Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 443, 586 S.E.2d 124, 127 (2003),cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1153 (2004).
The State of South Carolina clearly has created a liberty interest in good-time credits. See S.C. Code Ann. § 24-13-210 (Supp. 2006) (entitled "Credit given convicts for good behavior"). Significantly, the inmate inAl-Shabazz challenged the DOC's punishment in the form of reduction of accrued good time credits. The Court found that the inmate had a "protected liberty interest due to the potential loss of sentence-related credits" and, therefore, he was entitled to review by the ALJD. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757 (emphasis added).
The instant case is indistinguishable from the claim at issue inAl-Shabazz. Although the allegations here involve the loss of sentence-related credits which had not yet been earned, we find a protected liberty interest was nevertheless implicated. See Sullivan, supra. Moreover, it seems clear that Furtick's sanction clearly affected the duration of his incarceration because the direct result of the reprimand was, at the very least, the loss of good-time credits for the month of June 2001. Thus, the ALJ's finding that Furtick's reprimand did not "inevitably affect the duration" of his sentence, and the circuit court's subsequent finding that Furtick did not lose any good time credits, are erroneous.
In sum, pursuant to Al-Shabazz and its progeny, the ALJD has subject matter jurisdiction over Furtick's claim. Accordingly, the circuit court erred in affirming the ALJ's dismissal.
CONCLUSION
We reverse and remand to the ALJD to hold a hearing on the denial of Furtick's grievance claim.
In Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 1033 (2005), we stated that: "[w]hile the ALJD has jurisdiction over all inmate grievance appeals that have been properly filed, the Division is not required to hold a hearing in every matter. Summary dismissal may be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest." However, because this matter clearly implicates a loss of sentence-related credits, Furtick is entitled to an ALJD hearing.
REVERSED.
TOAL, C.J., MOORE, BURNETT and PLEICONES, JJ., concur.