I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Stanley Sims, #178185 (Sims) 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).
However, for inmate appeals, the nature of the appellate review depends upon the nature of the
claim presented. 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."). On the other hand, appeals
that implicate a protected interest are reviewed under the appellate review standards of the
Administrative Procedures Act (APA). Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742, 754
(2000) (The ALC conducts an APA review "in an appellate capacity" and is "restricted to
reviewing the decision below.").
II. Analysis
Here, Sims presents a claim that amounts to a complaint challenging the conditions of
confinement. Sims claims he needs a particular brand of tennis shoes for medical reasons and
that DOC officials denied him the use of a particular brand. Such a challenge implicates a
liberty interest only if "the State's action will inevitably affect the duration of [the inmate's]
sentence" (Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995)) or if the state has granted some benefit
of which the inmate has been deprived and the deprivation "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).
Here, the claim does not inevitably affect the duration of the sentence imposed on Sims. Further,
the claim does not implicate a state-created liberty interest since DOC's action is not atypical and
is not an action that is a significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Rather, prison officials have consulted with medical personnel and have found that the brand of
tennis shoes made available to Sims are proper footwear.
Thus, the claim here fails to implicate a protected liberty or property interest and warrants a
summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion
The decision entered below by DOC against Stanley Sims, #178185 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina