I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by John Bracy, #189250 (Bracy) of a decision in a non-collateral or
administrative matter issued by the South Carolina Department of Corrections (DOC). Thus,
appellate review jurisdiction vests in the Administrative Law Court (ALC). Slezak v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d 506 (2004).
Appeals that do not implicate an inmate's state-created liberty or property interest may be
summarily decided. Id.("We hold that the [ALC] has jurisdiction over all properly perfected
inmate appeals, but clarify that it may summarily decide those appeals that do not implicate an
inmate's state-created liberty or property interest."). Such is the case here.
II. Analysis
Here, Bracy presents a claim that challenges actions of DOC officials against property. More
particularly, Bracy asserts that a malfunctioning electrical outlet damaged his television set. He
seeks to have DOC purchase a replacement or pay him the value of the damage caused.
The deprivation of property must be one that "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the
inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995). See Slezak v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 361 S.C. 327, 605 S.E.2d
506 (2004) (removing legal papers from cell does not present a property interest since removal
based on
"fire safety reasons" and confiscating a book does not present a property interest since removal
based on "security reasons"); Cosco v. Uphoff, 195 F.3d 1221 (10th Cir. 1999) ("The Supreme
Court mandate since Sandin is that henceforth we are to review property and liberty interest
claims arising from prison conditions by asking whether the prison condition complained of
presents "the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a
liberty [or property] interest." (citation to Sandin omitted; the bracketed [of property] is original
in the Cosco decision)).
Here, DOC has not imposed a deprivation of property. Rather, the loss of the property occurred
due to a wall socket that malfunctioned. While not a desired occurrence, such is not atypical
when considering the normal activities of prison life. Likewise, the loss of the property is not a
significant deprivation in light of prison life. Thus, the claim fails to implicate a protected
property interest and warrants a summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion
The decision entered below by DOC against John Bracy, #189250 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 18, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
