Supreme Court Seal
South Carolina
JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
Site Map | Feedback
2006-UP-294 - Michau v. Office of the Ninth Circuit Solicitor

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE CITIED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 239(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Emory Alvin Michau, Jr., Appellant

v.

Office of the Ninth Circuit Solicitor, Respondent.


Appeal From Charleston County
 R. Markley Dennis, Jr., Circuit Court Judge


Unpublished Opinion No. 2006-UP-294
Submitted May 1, 2006 – Filed June 23, 2006


AFFIRMED


Emory Michau, Jr., of Charleston, for Appellant

Ralph E. Hoisington, Ninth Circuit Solicitor's Office, of Charleston, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: In March, 2004, Emory Michau, Jr. submitted a SCCA 223 (7/2003) form to the Ninth Circuit Solicitor’s Office requesting that a charge for contributing to the delinquency of a minor be expunged from his from is record.  Michau was never convicted of the offense charged.  The Solicitor’s Office demanded that Michau pay a one hundred and fifty dollar processing fee pursuant to an order issued by Chief Justice Toal. 

Michau appealed to the South Carolina Administrative Law Court.  The Administrative Law Court refused to hear the appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction and instructed Michau to complete a grievance process.  Michua filed a notice of appeal with The South Carolina Court of Appeals.  This court refused to hear the appeal due to a lack of jurisdiction. 

Michau filed a notice of appeal with the circuit court challenging the Administrative Law Court’s decision.  The circuit court required Michau to pay a filing fee or to move to proceed in forma pauperis.  Michau moved to proceed in forma pauperis, and the circuit court denied his motion on July 28, 2004.  Michau argues this denial was in error.  We disagree.  

After reviewing the record on appeal, we find no error in the circuit court’s denial of Michau’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.  We base this decision on the following authorities: Ex parte Martin, 321 S.C. 533, 535, 471 S.E.2d 134, 135 (1995) (holding that absent a statutory waiver of filing fees, motions to proceed in forma pauperis may only be granted where specifically authorized by statute or required by constitutional provisions);  Sullivan v. South Carolina Dep’t of Corrs., 355 S.C. 437, 446, 586 S.E.2d 124, 128 (2003) (holding an inmate was not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis on his appeal from an Administrative Law Judge’s dismissal because there is no statutory provision allowing the waiver of filing fees for appeals brought under the Administrative Procedures Act).

AFFIRMED.[1]

Kittredge, Short, and Williams, JJ., concur.


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