I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Luxurious X, #176417 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, Luxurious X presents a claim that amounts to a complaint challenging the conditions of
confinement. Luxurious X argues that DOC's policy of allowing opposite sex officers to search
inmates is improper. 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 Luxurious X.
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, the means and methods for searching inmates is a matter within the
discretion of DOC officials and the practice of using opposite sex officials to search inmates is
not unexpected in a prison population. 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 Luxurious X, #176417 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
