Background
Jay Tate, an inmate proceeding pro se, was convicted by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (SCDC) of two drug-related disciplinary offenses and sanctioned with the loss of good-time credits, among other penalties. Tate appealed to the Administrative Law Court (ALC). Before the ALC, Tate argued that SCDC violated his “liberty interest” by sanctioning him with the loss of good-time credits. The ALC addressed that argument directly but summarily dismissed Tate’s appeal, finding that the sanctions did not implicate a state-created liberty or property interest.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals, Tate abandoned his good-time-credit liberty-interest argument and instead raised a different set of arguments: that SCDC failed to follow its own policies during the disciplinary proceeding, that he was unable to hear certain evidence presented against him, and that SCDC failed to produce materials he requested. Neither of these sets of procedural-deficiency arguments had been presented to or ruled upon by the ALC.
The Court’s Holding
A unanimous panel affirmed, holding that Tate’s issues were not preserved for appellate review. Under established South Carolina law, issues not raised to and ruled upon by the ALC are unpreserved. The court applied the principle from Brown v. S.C. Dep’t of Health & Environmental Control, 348 S.C. 507 (2002), and the well-settled rule from State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138 (2003), that “[a] party may not argue one ground at trial and an alternate ground on appeal.” Because Tate had litigated a liberty-interest theory before the ALC and then switched to procedural-deficiency arguments on appeal without having raised those arguments below and obtaining a ruling, the court had no basis to review them.
Key Takeaways
- Issues not raised to and ruled upon by the Administrative Law Court are unpreserved for appellate review; an appellant who takes a different legal position on appeal than the one presented to the ALC will have his new arguments rejected without reaching the merits.
- South Carolina’s issue-preservation rules apply with equal force to pro se appellants; unrepresented parties are not exempt from the requirement that arguments be raised and ruled upon below.
- A prisoner challenging SCDC disciplinary sanctions that include the loss of good-time credits must focus the ALC proceeding on the specific legal theory to be pursued on appeal; abandoning the lower-court theory and adopting a new one on appeal forfeits review of the new theory.
- The ALC is the proper forum for raising procedural-deficiency arguments in SCDC disciplinary appeals; those arguments must be presented there, with a ruling obtained, before the Court of Appeals will consider them.
Why It Matters
For South Carolina practitioners and incarcerated individuals navigating SCDC disciplinary appeals, Tate v. SCDC is a reminder that the ALC is not merely a procedural way station — it is the forum where the legal theory of the appeal must be developed and adjudicated. Switching theories between the ALC and the Court of Appeals, even if the new theory appears stronger, forfeits appellate review. Counsel assisting prisoners in administrative proceedings should ensure that all viable arguments are raised at the ALC level and that a ruling is obtained on each theory to protect the record for any subsequent appeal.
The decision also illustrates a common pitfall in pro se appeals: the arguments that “feel” most compelling from a fairness standpoint — such as procedural failures by the institution — may not be the arguments actually litigated before the administrative tribunal, and switching to them on appeal without a ruling below is fatal to the appeal.