forum for disputes involving the loss of an opportunity to earn good-time credits, Al-Shabazz notwithstanding. This method of resolution would lend itself to confusion and would constitute an inefficient use of judicial resources. 11 . During the pendency of this appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed Appellant’s underlying convictions and sentences. State v. Howard, 396 S.C. 173, 720 S.E.2d 511 (Ct.App.2011). Thus, even if Appellant was entitled to relief with respect to the disciplinary sanction, it would be inconsequential as Appellant has been released from incarceration and is subject to a new trial. 12 . Notably, the USSC has continued to limit constitutional protection for legal assistance between inmates. See Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 121 S.Ct. 1475, 149 L.Ed.2d 420 (2001) (<HOLDING>). 13 . To the extent the dissent claims that
holding that an inmate has a first amendment right to file grievances against prison officials holding that a prisoner has no first amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates and that therefore prison officials did not violate the prisoners constitutional rights when they intercepted a letter containing legal advice that he sent to another prisoner holding that inmate did not possess a first amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates beyond protection normally accorded prisoners speech recognizing that inmates have no freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance holding the sixth amendment right to effective assistance extends to a criminal defendants first appeal as of right