Bentley v. SCDC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

David Bentley, #337750, Respondent,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Appellant.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002692

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Deborah Brooks Durden, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2016-UP-412
Submitted September 1, 2016 – Filed September 28, 2016

AFFIRMED

Christina Catoe Bigelow, of the South Carolina
Department of Corrections, of Columbia, for Appellant.

David Bentley, pro se.

PER CURIAM: The South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) appeals
the Administrative Law Court's (ALC) ruling regarding whether David Bentley
was denied access to the courts. SCDC argues the ALC erred by granting Bentley
relief he failed to seek during the inmate grievance process and ruling SCDC must
provide Bentley with access to Oklahoma legal materials when the State of
Oklahoma was responsible for providing Bentley with the materials. Also, SCDC
asserts the ALC properly found Bentley could not challenge his transfer from
Oklahoma to SCDC. We affirm.

We find SCDC's argument regarding whether the ALC erred by granting Bentley
relief he failed to seek during the inmate grievance process unpreserved because
SCDC raised this argument for the first time to this Court. The ALC sat in an
appellate capacity, and SCDC argued only the merits at that time. Thus, it would
be inappropriate for this Court to consider this argument. See State v. Bailey, 368
S.C. 39, 44, 626 S.E.2d 898, 900 (Ct. App. 2006) (finding it would be
inappropriate to rule on an argument the appellant failed to present to the
intermediate appellate court).

Additionally, we find SCDC's argument that the ALC erred because Oklahoma
was responsible for providing Bentley access to Oklahoma legal materials is
unpreserved. SCDC presented three arguments to the ALC: (1) the ALC should
dismiss Bentley's appeal because Oklahoma's decision to transfer Bentley to SCDC
was not reviewable; (2) the ALC should dismiss Bentley's appeal because
Oklahoma's transfer of Bentley to SCDC did not implicate a state-created liberty
interest; and (3) Bentley had not been denied access to the courts because he failed
to carry "his burden to show actual injury," which is required to succeed on a
denial of access claim. SCDC failed to argue that if Bentley had been denied
access to the courts it was Oklahoma's responsibility to provide him access. Thus,
SCDC failed to present this argument to the ALC, and it is unpreserved. See Home
Med. Sys., Inc. v. S.C. Dep't of Revenue, 382 S.C. 556, 562, 677 S.E.2d 582, 586
(2009) ("As in other appellate matters, we require issue preservation in
administrative appeals."); Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C.
507, 519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) ("[I]ssues not raised to and ruled on by the
AL[C] are not preserved for appellate consideration.").

With regard to SCDC's argument that the ALC properly found Bentley could not
challenge his transfer from Oklahoma to SCDC, we decline to address the issue
because the ALC ruled in SCDC's favor. Thus, SCDC was not aggrieved by the
ALC's order with regard to this issue. See Rule 201(b), SCACR ("Only a party
aggrieved by an order, judgment, sentence or decision may appeal."); Ritter &
Assocs., Inc. v. Buchanan Volkswagen, Inc., 405 S.C. 643, 655, 748 S.E.2d 801,
807 (Ct. App. 2013) (declining to address issues on which the appellant prevailed
below because he was not aggrieved by the order "with regard to those rulings").
AFFIRMED.1

WILLIAMS, THOMAS, and GEATHERS, JJ., concur.

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.