I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Ray Degraffenred, #88951 (Dagraffenred) of a final 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."). The instant matter is such a case.
II. Analysis
Here, Dagraffenred presents a claim that challenges actions of DOC officials against property.
More particularly, Dagraffenred asserts that he used $8.50 of his funds to purchase a book which
never arrived from the seller. He seeks to have DOC either intervene in the matter or return his
funds.
Such a challenge does not implicate a property interest. To raise a property interest issue, the
deprivation of the property must be beyond the normal activities existing in a prison population
such that it "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 e.g. 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 was based on "fire safety reasons" and
confiscating a book does not present a property interest since removal was 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, no deprivation of funds occurred at all. Rather, the funds were used by Degraffenred and
not by DOC. However, even if one could find a deprivation of funds by DOC, the use of the
funds to purchase a book that did not arrive 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 therefore
warrants a summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion
The decision entered below by DOC against Ray Degraffenred, #88951 is AFFIRMED
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 18, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
