Background
After the parole board denied Michael Pettinato parole, he attempted to appeal to the Administrative Law Court. Acting without counsel from prison, he sent filings and repeated correspondence within the relevant period but did not initially use the approved form. The ALC dismissed the matter as untimely.
Pettinato appealed, pointing to his July submissions and efforts to comply. The material he provided appeared to contain the same information the approved form required and to present it in a substantially similar format. The dismissal order did not discuss those submissions or his correspondence.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Rule 62 permits the ALC to consider whether a party made a good-faith effort to file within the deadline. Determining good faith remains committed to the ALC’s discretion, and the appellate court did not decide the merits of Pettinato’s underlying parole challenge.
But the record did not show whether the ALC had considered the timely documents and Pettinato’s extensive attempts to comply before dismissing the appeal. The court acknowledged that self-represented litigants remain responsible for procedural rules. It nevertheless concluded that the combination of imprisonment, diligence, and a timely submission containing the required information warranted an express good-faith determination.
Key Takeaways
- An imperfect filing may require Rule 62 review when it timely conveys the information demanded by the approved form.
- Pro se status does not excuse procedural compliance, but documented diligence can matter to a good-faith determination.
- An administrative dismissal order should reveal that potentially dispositive timely submissions were actually considered.
Why It Matters
Lawyers handling South Carolina administrative appeals should preserve every transmission, enclosure, receipt, and response concerning filing. When timeliness is contested, those materials may demonstrate a timely good-faith effort even if the first submission did not perfectly match the agency or tribunal’s preferred format.
The opinion is also a reminder for decision-makers to create a reviewable record. A discretionary dismissal is harder to sustain when the order does not address evidence directly relevant to the governing exception. On remand, Pettinato still must persuade the ALC that his efforts qualify; the Court of Appeals required consideration, not a favorable merits result.