I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Adam Pugh, #257711 (Pugh) 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, Pugh presents a claim that amounts to a complaint challenging the conditions of
confinement. Pugh argues that DOC's decision to stop providing dessert at lunch is inconsistent
with maintaining the well-being of the inmates. 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 Pugh.
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 decision not to provide desserts at lunch is a matter well within the
discretion of the prison officials and is not uncommon in a prison population setting. 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 Adam Pugh, #257711 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina