Quillian v. Evatt
Decision Date | 22 September 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 2199,2199 |
Citation | 315 S.C. 489,445 S.E.2d 639 |
Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
Parties | Richard T. QUILLIAN, Appellant, v. Parker EVATT, Commissioner, SCDC, and Tony L. Strawhorn, Director of Community Services, Respondents. |
Richard T. Quillian, pro se.
William H. Davidson, II and Andrew F. Lindemann both of Ellis, Lawhorne, Davidson & Sims, Columbia, for respondents.
Richard T. Quillian appeals the Department of Corrections' denial of his application for entry into the "work release" program. He thereafter commenced the present action, alleging claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the State Tort Claims Act, S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-10 et seq. (Supp.1993). The trial judge granted summary judgment to the respondents. We affirm.
Claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 are not available for all alleged torts of state officials or injuries allegedly suffered at the hands of state officials. Rather, such claims are limited to violations of rights protected by the United States Constitution and federal law. E.g., White v. Thomas, 660 F.2d 680 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1027, 102 S.Ct. 1731, 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982). Participation in a work-release program is a privilege, not a right. Gunter v. State, 298 S.C. 113, 378 S.E.2d 443 (1989), overruled in part on other grounds, Griffin v. State, --- S.C. ----, 433 S.E.2d 862 (1993) ( ). Thus, the denial of participation in a work-release program, standing alone, affords no basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
As to the Department, it is immune from liability under the discretionary immunity afforded by S.C.Code Ann. § 15-78-60(5) (Supp.1993). The decision to grant or deny an application for participation in the work-release program clearly involves "the exercise of discretion or judgment" protected by § 15-78-60(5). See S.C.Code Ann. § 24-3-20(b) (1989) ( ); see also Gunter, 298 S.C. at 116, 378 S.E.2d at 444 () (emphasis added); cf. Davis v. State, 274 S.C. 549, 265 S.E.2d 679 (1980) ( ). Contrary to the appellant's argument, the record conclusively demonstrates the Department engaged in the conscious decision making required by law. See Foster v. South Carolina Dep't of Hwys. and Pub. Transp., 306 S.C. 519, 413 S.E.2d 31 (1992), citing Niver v. South Carolina Dep't of Hwys. and Pub. Transp., 302 S.C. 461, 395 S.E.2d 728 (Ct.App.1990).
On appeal, Quillian argues numerous other issues including raising claims under 42 U.S.C. §...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skipper v. Sc Dept. of Corrections
...in a work-release program, standing alone, affords no basis for a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983." Quillian v. Evatt, 315 S.C. 489, 491, 445 S.E.2d 639, 640 (Ct.App.1994) (citation In an analogous situation, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated: It is well settled that federal court......
- Higgins v. Medical University of South Carolina
-
State v. Blick
...of Corrections has discretion in determining whether to allow an inmate to participate in a work release program. Quillian v. Evatt, 315 S.C. 489, 445 S.E.2d 639 (Ct.App.1994). Participation in a work release program is a privilege, not a right. Id. Respondent's participation was governed b......