I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Dan Temple, #254316 (Temple) of a final decision in a non-collateral or administrative matter issued by the South Carolina Department of Corrections
(DOC). Therefore, 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).
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."). However, appeals that
implicate a protected interest are subject to 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, Temple asserts DOC officials are improperly reading his mail. Such a claim amounts to a
complaint challenging the conditions of confinement. 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).
The DOC actions in the instant appeal do not inevitably affect the duration of the sentence
imposed on Temple. 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, in a prison setting, security and administrative reasons
present sufficient reasons to allow prison officials to read inmate mail sent to another inmate.
Thus, the claim here fails to implicate a protected liberty or property interest and warrants a
summary dismissal to the challenge made by Temple.
III. Conclusion
The decision entered below by DOC against Dan Temple, #254316 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
