Moultrie v. Reynolds
| Decision Date | 06 August 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:15-0198-DCN-BM |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | Stanley Lee Moultrie, #307351, Petitioner, v. NFN Reynolds, Warden of Lee Correctional Institution, Respondent. |
This action was filed by the Petitioner, an inmate at the Lee Correctional Institution, part of the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC), pursuant to either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254. In this Petition, Petitioner challenges a disciplinary conviction at the prison.
The Respondent filed a motion to dismiss on June 22, 2015 on the grounds that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing this federal Petition. As the Petitioner is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro order was entered by the Court on June 23, 2015, advising Petitioner of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Petitioner was specifically advised that if he failed to respond adequately, the Respondent's motion may be granted, thereby ending his case. Petitioner thereafter filed a memorandum in opposition, with attached exhibits, on July 28, 2015.
The Respondent's motion is now before the Court for disposition.1
Petitioner alleges in a verified § 2241 Petition that he was charged with a prison violation on May 22, 2014, but that even though prison policy required that his hearing be held by June 13, 2014, his hearing was not held until July 1, 2014, with Petitioner being served with an extension notice that same day. With respect to his appeal of this conviction, Plaintiff alleges that the "administrative court refused to review the appeal and dismiss the case [on] the grounds Petitioner failed to administratively exhaust review when prison officials policy prevent appeal on grounds of technicality . . . ." Petitioner requests that the final agency decision be vacated, and that "all sanctions [be] reinstated".2 See § 2241 Petition (Court Docket No. 1-2). Petitioner also submitted a separate § 2254 Petition form in which he alleges that he was sentenced on July 1, 2014 as a result of a disciplinary hearing committee conviction on the charges of use of obscene vulgar profanity (818), disrespect (836), and refusing or failing to obey order (825). Plaintiff further alleges therein that his appeal to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court was "dismissed on procedural grounds". In this § 2254 form, Plaintiff repeats his claim that he was never notified of an extension of his hearing date until the day he appeared before the disciplinary committee on July 1, 2014, at which time he was given an extension form wherein prison officials had approved an extension on June 17, 2014,3 four days after the "statutory deadline". Petitioner alleges that on July 1, 2014 he refused to sign the extension form, and that his due process rights were violated by his hearing being held on that date. See Petition (Court Docket No. 1).
As attachments to the motion to dismiss, Respondent has submitted a copy of the transcript from Petitioner's disciplinary hearing on July 1, 2014. This transcript provides, in part, as follows:
Respondent's Exhibit A [Transcript], p. 2.
The transcript of the hearing further reflects that Petitioner then proceeded to plead guilty to all three of the disciplinary charges with which he had been charged. Id., p. 3.
Respondent has also provided a copy of the order of dismissal from the South Carolina Administrative Law Court, which reflects that Petitioner filed a Step 1 grievance with the Department of Corrections challenging his disciplinary convictions (Grievance No. LCI-814-14), which the Department refused to process because guilty pleas are non-grievable. The ALC order further reflects that Petitioner did not file a Step 2 grievance, and that therefore there was no indication that Petitioner had received a final agency decision for the grievance associated with the disciplinary convictions at issue.4 As such, the Administrative Law Judge dismissed Petitioner's appeal to the ALC, findingthat before a Petitioner may . See Respondent's Exhibit D [Order of Dismissal].
Finally, Respondent has submitted a copy of a printout from the South Carolina Judicial Systems Appellate Case Management System, reflecting that Petitioner did not appeal the ALC's December 2, 2014 Order of Dismissal to the South Carolina Court of Appeals. See Respondent's Exhibit C.
As attachments to his memorandum in opposition to the motion to dismiss, Petitioner has submitted a copy of the disciplinary hearing extension request showing that an extension of Petitioner's disciplinary hearing had been approved by the Division of Operations on June 17, 2014. The space wherein the inmate acknowledges notification of the hearing extension approval and receipt of a copy of same is blank on the exhibit. See Petitioner's Exhibit H-1. Petitioner has also submitted copies of an Incident Report dated May 22, 2014 relating to the disciplinary charges he incurred, as well as a copy of the Disciplinary Report and Hearing Record showing where he pled guilty to the charges on July 1, 2014. See Petitioner's Exhibits H-2 and H-3. Petitioner has alsosubmitted a copy of his Step 1 inmate grievance (Grievance No. LCI-814-14) wherein he grieved his disciplinary conviction, and which reflects the Warden's decision to return the grievance unprocessed as a non-grievable issue. Although it is not clear from a plain reading of the exhibit itself, the undersigned has assumed for purposes of this Report and Recommendation that Petitioner indicated that he did not accept the Warden's decision on his Step 1 Grievance and wished to appeal.5 See Petitioner's Exhibit H-4. However, no Step 2 grievance appeal form has been submitted as an exhibit, and Petitioner apparently does not contest that he never filed a Step 2 grievance appeal.
Finally, Petitioner has also submitted copies of the hearing transcript and Order of Dismissal of the ALC court which were submitted by the Respondent. See Petitioner's Exhibits H-5 and H-6.
Summary Judgment6 shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56, FRCP; see also, Habeas Corpus Rules 5-7, 11. Further, while the Federal Court is charged with liberally construing pleadings filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case; See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319 (1972); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the Court can ignore a clear failure in thepleadings to allege facts which set forth a Federal claim, nor can the Court assume the existence of a genuine issue of material fact where none exists. Weller v. Department of Social Services, 901 F.2d 387 (4th Cir. 1990). Here, Respondent contends that Petitioner is procedurally barred from presenting his claim in this Court because he failed to exhaust this claim under the prison administrative remedy procedures as well as before the state courts, and after a careful review and consideration of the arguments and exhibits presented, the undersigned is constrained to agree.
Petitioner's federal remedy of a writ of habeas corpus under either 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or § 2254 can only be sought after he has exhausted all of his remedies in the courts of the state of South Carolina. Picard v. Connor, 404 U.S. 270 (1971); Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 420 U.S. 484, 490-491 (1973); Moore v. DeYoung, 515 F.2d 437, 442-443 (3d Cir. 1975). To exhaust state remedies in South Carolina, a state prisoner is required to use SCDC's hearing and grievance procedure to challenge a "disciplinary outcome, calculation of sentence-related credits, custody status, or other condition of imprisonment." See Al-Shabazz v. South Carolina, 527 S.E.2d 742, 753 (S.C. 2000); see also Goins v. Cartledge No. 14-3282, 2015 WL 4504030 at ** 1, 3 n. 2 (D.S.C. July 23, 2015). Accordingly, before Petitioner may proceed on this claim in this Court, he must first have exhausted the administrative remedies that were available to him at the prison.
The Respondent has the burden of showing that Petitioner failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. See Anderson v. XYZ Correctional Health Services, Inc., 407 F.3d 674, 683 (4th Cir. 2005) []; Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199 (2007). To meet this burden, the Respondent has submitted a copy of the Order of the Administrative Law Court dismissingPetitioner's appeal to that Court because he had failed to first exhaust his prison remedies by filing a Step 2 Grievance appeal. See Respondent's Exhibit D. Further, although Petitioner has submitted a copy of the denial of his Step 1 Grievance, he himself concedes in his brief that he then proceeded straight to the Administrative Law Court without filing a Step 2 grievance appeal. See Petitioner's Brief, p. 1. Hence,...
To continue reading
Request your trial