South Carolina
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

CAPTION:
Ruben Martinez, #228064 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Ruben Martinez, #228064

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

DOCKET NUMBER:
03-ALJ-00840-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a

ORDERS:

FINAL ORDER AND DECISION Grievance No. LIEBER 0415-03

I. Statement of the Case

This matter is an appeal by Ruben Martinez, #228064 (Martinez) 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."). Such is the case here.

II. Analysis

Here, Martinez presents a claim that challenges actions of DOC officials against property. More particularly, Martinez asserts his television was damaged when he was transferred, and he seeks a damages award.

Such a challenge will not implicate a property interest. The deprivation of the property must be one that "imposes a typical 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, while not desirable, the alleged damaged is not atypical when considering the normal activities of prison life and considering the need to transport property when inmates move from one facility to another. 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.