Tomlin 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

Isiah James, Jr. and George Lee Tomlin, Plaintiffs,

Of whom George Lee Tomlin is the Appellant,

v.

The South Carolina Department of Corrections,
Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2015-002057

Appeal From Greenville County
Daniel Dewitt Hall, Circuit Court Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2018-UP-226
Submitted April 2, 2018 – Filed June 6, 2018

VACATED

George Lee Tomlin, pro se.

Russell W. Harter, Jr. and Carly H. Davis, both of
Chapman, Harter & Harter, P.A., of Greenville, for
Respondent.
PER CURIAM: George Lee Tomlin appeals the circuit court's order granting
summary judgment to the South Carolina Department of Corrections (the
Department) and denying partial summary judgment to him on his claims for
declaratory judgment as to whether the Department owed him costs and additional
wages in connection with his participation in the Prison Industries Program (PIP).
On appeal, Tomlin argues the circuit court erred by (1) granting summary
judgment to the Department and (2) denying partial summary judgment to him.
We vacate the circuit court's order as it applies to Tomlin for lack of jurisdiction.

This appeal stems from Tomlin's 2005 grievance against the Department based on
the Department's alleged failure to pay him the prevailing wage and overtime
wages for his work with the PIP. See S.C. Dep't of Corr. v. Tomlin, 387 S.C. 652,
654, 694 S.E.2d 25, 26 (Ct. App. 2010), overruled by Allison v. W.L. Gore &
Assocs., 394 S.C. 185, 714 S.E.2d 547 (2011). After the Department denied his
grievance, Tomlin appealed to the administrative law court (ALC), which reversed
the Department's refusal to pay Tomlin the prevailing wage and found the
prevailing wage was $5.25. Id. at 655, 694 S.E.2d at 26. The ALC affirmed the
Department's denial of overtime wages to Tomlin. Id. Tomlin and the Department
appealed to the circuit court.1 Id. The circuit court found $5.25 was not the
prevailing wage and remanded the issue to the ALC to determine the correct
prevailing wage. Id. The circuit court affirmed the ALC's determination that
Tomlin was ineligible for overtime wages. Id. Tomlin appealed to this court, and
this court reversed the circuit court's determination that Tomlin was not entitled to
overtime wages and remanded Tomlin's case to the ALC to determine whether the
Department owed Tomlin overtime wages and, if so, what amount. Id. at 655, 660,
694 S.E.2d at 26, 29. This court also noted the issue of whether the Department
paid Tomlin the prevailing wage had already been remanded to the ALC. Id. at
659, 694 S.E.2d at 29.

In 2013, Tomlin and Isiah James filed a complaint against the Department in the
circuit court, asserting they were entitled to additional wages due to their work
with the PIP and seeking a declaration as to their rights to any additional wages or
funds from the Department in accordance with this court's previous opinions that
were remanded to the ALC. During the hearing before the circuit court, the
Department stated,"[J]urisdiction for [Tomlin's] claims rests still with the [ALC]"
because the amount of wages owed to Tomlin had never been reduced to judgment,

1
Prior to June 16, 2008, ALC final decisions were appealed to the circuit court.
Compare S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-610 (Supp. 2008), with S.C. Code Ann. § 1-23-
610 (2005).
and the parties had not been back to the ALC to address the issue. The circuit
court, however, proceeded to hear the matter and ultimately granted summary
judgment in favor of the Department.

We find that the circuit court lacked jurisdiction over Tomlin's action because this
court previously remanded Tomlin's wage claims to the ALC and the matters were
still pending at the time of the hearing before the circuit court. See Tomlin, 387
S.C. at 655, 660, 694 S.E.2d at 26, 29 (remanding Tomlin's claims for overtime
wages to the ALC to determine if the Department owed Tomlin any overtime
wages and noting the issue of the correct prevailing wage had already been
remanded to the ALC). Furthermore, our supreme court has held that inmates "do
not have a private right of action; instead, the [Department's] internal grievance
procedure, with recourse to the [ALC], is the appropriate way to have a prisoner's
wage claim adjudicated." Torrence v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 373 S.C. 586, 593, 646
S.E.2d 866, 869 (2007)); see id. (providing inmates may not bring wage claims
pursuant to the statutory scheme governing the PIP in circuit court in the posture of
a declaratory judgment action).

Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court's order as it pertains to Tomlin's wage
claims.

VACATED.2

SHORT, THOMAS, and HILL, JJ., concur.

2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.