Crowe v. Leeke, 21073
| Decision Date | 25 October 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 21073,21073 |
| Citation | 259 S.E.2d 614,273 S.C. 763 |
| Court | South Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | Niles L. CROWE, Appellant, v. William D. LEEKE, Department of Corrections, The State of South Carolina, Respondents. |
John R. Ferguson, Clinton, for appellant.
Atty. Gen. Daniel R. McLeod, Deputy Atty. Gen. Emmet H. Clair and Staff Atty. Betty J. Willoughby, Columbia, for respondents.
The appellant filed an application for Post-Conviction Relief which was denied. Through this appeal, he asserts the hearing judge should have found his constitutional rights were violated by the actions of the Department of Corrections in transferring him within the prison system and downgrading his custody status. We disagree.
In addition to the aforementioned allegations, the appellant's petition contained other allegations which were properly cognizable under the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedures Act. Due to the actions of the parties and the court below, we have construed the appellant's petition with regard to the issues on appeal to be in the nature of a Habeas corpus proceeding. Viewed otherwise, the hearing judge would have been without authority to consider this matter because a proceeding for the harm asserted by the appellant is not envisioned by the Uniform Post-Conviction Procedures Act.
The record is indicative of the good faith exercise of the discretionary power of the prison officials in the maintenance of order, discipline, and security among the prison population and, as such, is not subject to judicial review. It is void of proof that they acted arbitrarily, capriciously or from personal bias or prejudice. See Sellers v. State, 259 S.C. 564, 193 S.E.2d 513 (1972); Swinton v. State, 261 S.C. 372, 200 S.E.2d 77 (1973). On the contrary, the respondent's determinations concerned routine administrative actions that were accomplished in good faith.
AFFIRMED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Al-Shabazz v. State
...of custody status are not properly raised in a PCR proceeding. Tutt v. State, 277 S.C. 525, 290 S.E.2d 414; Crowe v. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763, 259 S.E.2d 614 (1979). Today we add credits-related issues and other conditions of imprisonment to the list of administrative matters. We overrule Busby ......
-
Skipper v. Sc Dept. of Corrections
...capriciously, or from personal bias" (quoting Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 194, 470 S.E.2d 848, 851 (1996))); Crowe v. Leeke, 273 S.C. 763, 764, 259 S.E.2d 614, 615 (1979) (holding transfer within prison system or downgrading of custody status is not subject to judicial review as long as p......
-
Taylor v. McCall, Civil Action No. 9:11-2737-JFA-BM
...in his case was arbitrary, capricious, or based on some other unlawful motive. See generally, Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486; Crowe v. Leeke, 259 S.E.2d 614, 615 (1979); Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U.S. 344, 347 (1986)["The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not implicated by the lack o......
-
Wright v. Webber
...in his case was arbitrary, capricious, or based on some other unlawful motive. See generally, Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486;Crowe v. Leeke, 259 S.E.2d 614, 615 (S.C. 1979). Plaintiff has presented no such evidence. Thus, Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this claim.2. Grievance Proce......