Goins 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

Michael Goins, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2013-002278

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
John D. McLeod, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2015-UP-073
Submitted December 1, 2014 – Filed February 11, 2015

REMANDED

Michael Goins, pro se.

Daniel John Crooks, III, and Christopher D. Florian, both
of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, of
Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Michael Goins, an inmate incarcerated with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC), appeals his conviction for trafficking, use, or
possession of narcotics, marijuana, or unauthorized drugs, including prescription
drugs or inhalants, and the administrative law court's (ALC's) dismissal of his
appeal. Appellant argues the ALC erred by dismissing his case pursuant to Rule
60(A) of the South Carolina Administrative Law Court Rules for failure to comply
with the rules of procedure in his appeal. We remand.

Rule 60(A) sets forth the time limits to file an original brief in an appeal of a prison
disciplinary conviction: "Unless otherwise ordered, the party first noticing the
appeal shall file an original brief within sixty-five (65) days after the date of
assignment." Rule 53(A), SCALCR, sets forth the requirements for filing a
document:
The date of the filing is the date of delivery or the date of
mailing as shown by the postmark or by the date stamp
affixed by the mail room at the appellant's correctional
institution. Any document filed with the Court shall be
accompanied by proof of service of such document on all
parties. A document, pleading or motion or other paper
is deemed filed with the Court by:

(1) delivering the document to the Court; or

(2) depositing the document in the U.S. mail or in the
mail room at the appellant's correctional institution,
properly addressed to the Court, with sufficient first class
postage attached.

Goins's appeal was assigned to the ALC on July 26, 2013, making his brief due on
or before September 30, 2013. However, according to the ALC's order dismissing
Goins's appeal, his brief had not been filed as of October 4, 2013. Goins maintains
he properly filed his brief on September 13, 2013, well within the deadline for
filing, by depositing it in the mail room at his correctional institution. In support of
his proposition, Goins submitted a signed, dated, and notarized Proof of Service
showing that on September 13, 2013, he served a copy of his brief on the ALC and
SCDC by mailing it to their addresses. Goins also submitted a copy of a SCDC
Form 10-14 "Agreement to Debit E.H. Cooper Account" to prove he agreed to
have two letters, presumably containing his brief, sent via "out-agency mail" to the
ALC and SCDC Office of General Counsel. The Form 10-14 was signed and
dated by both Goins and Mailroom Supervisor Nancy Merchant and stated the mail
was sent on September 16, 2013.1 Because evidence in the record suggests Goins
properly complied with the applicable time limits, we remand the case to the ALC
for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether Goins made a good faith effort to
timely file his brief. See Rule 62, SCALCR ("Upon motion of any party, or on its
own motion, [the ALC] may dismiss an appeal or resolve the appeal adversely to
the offending party for failure to comply with any of the rules of procedure for
appeals, including the failure to comply with any of the time limits . . . .
Notwithstanding the time frames established herein, the [ALC] has the discretion
to determine that a document is timely filed upon a finding that the party who filed
the document made a good faith effort to file the document within the applicable
time limits.").

REMANDED.2

WILLIAMS, GEATHERS, and McDONALD, JJ., concur.

1
Although Goins stated that he deposited his briefs in the mail room on September
13, 2013, he also included in his brief that the documents were not sent until
September 16, 2013, as indicated by the signature of the mail room supervisor on
the Form 10-14. Under Rule 53(A), the date of filing is the date the inmate
deposits the document in his correctional institution's mail room, not the date the
mail departs from the mail room. Therefore, based on the evidence presented by
Goins, the date of filing would be September 13, 2013, not September 16, 2013.
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.