Abdullah 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

Albarr-Ali Abdullah, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2016-002227

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

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-162
Submitted March 1, 2018 – Filed April 18, 2018

AFFIRMED

Albarr-Ali Abdullah, pro se.

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

PER CURIAM: Albarr-Ali Abdullah, an inmate with the South Carolina
Department of Corrections (SCDC), appeals an order from the Administrative Law
Court (ALC) affirming his disciplinary conviction of possessing a cell phone. On
appeal, Abdullah argues the ALC erred in affirming his conviction because SCDC
failed to provide sufficient due process in that (1) his notice of charges lacked
sufficient information to allow him to establish an alibi defense, (2) SCDC
prevented him from presenting favorable witnesses, and (3) he was not afforded an
opportunity to review the evidence against him. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities:

1. As to issues 1 and 3, we find Abdullah's notice document contained sufficient
information to satisfy due process, and due process did not require SCDC to
provide discovery. See Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 371, 527 S.E.2d 742,
751 (2000) ("[D]ue process in a prison disciplinary proceeding involving serious
misconduct requires: (1) that advance written notice of the charge be given to the
inmate at least twenty-four hours before the hearing; (2) that factfinders must
prepare a written statement of the evidence relied on and reasons for the
disciplinary action; (3) that the inmate should be allowed to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence, provided there is no undue hazard to institutional
safety or correctional goals; (4) that counsel substitute (a fellow inmate or a prison
employee) should be allowed to help illiterate inmates or in complex cases an
inmate cannot handle alone; and (5) that the persons hearing the matter, who may
be prison officials or employees, must be impartial."); id. at 370 n.7, 527 S.E.2d at
750 n.7 ("One author has noted that the Supreme Court actually established the
maximum constitutional requirements in such proceedings, given its reversal of two
lower courts' decisions granting additional rights to inmates." (emphasis by court)
(citing John W. Palmer, Constitutional Rights of Prisoners, § 8.3 (1991)).

2. As to issue 2, we find Abdullah's refusal to sign the notice of charges document
was "an undue hazard to institutional safety and goals," and thus, SCDC did not
violate due process by not allowing Abdullah to call witnesses. See Al-Shabazz,
338 S.C. at 371, 527 S.E.2d at 751 ("[D]ue process in a prison disciplinary
proceeding involving serious misconduct requires . . . that the inmate should be
allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, provided there is no
undue hazard to institutional safety or correctional goals . . . ."); id. at 370, 527
S.E.2d at 750 ("[C]ourts must balance the demands of the Due Process Clause
against the need to maintain an orderly and safe prison environment.").

AFFIRMED.

HUFF, GEATHERS, and MCDONALD, JJ., concur.

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