I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Roy Gilchrist, #220490 (Gilchrist) 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, Gilchrist presents a claim that amounts to a complaint challenging the conditions of
confinement. Gilchrist argues that he is exposed to an unsafe environment due to tobacco
smoke, asbestos, and lead. 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 Gilchrist.
Further, the claim does not implicate a state-created liberty interest since the environment within
a prison facility is a matter within the management control of DOC officials and is a
circumstance common to all prisoners. Such DOC discretionary decisions will not be reversed
unless such decisions are arbitrary or capricious. Here, the decision below relies upon a finding
by DOC officials that no hazardous material is located at Manning Correctional Institute. 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 Roy Gilchrist, #220490 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina