I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Michael Chester, #200907 (Chester) 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, Chester presents a claim that amounts to a complaint challenging custody status. When
reviewing a DOC custody decision, the Court sits in an appellate capacity. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at
377, 527 S.E.2d at 754. Thus, the review is confined to the record Id. 527 S.E.2d at 750. In making
the review, the ALJ must be mindful that a traditional "hands off" approach exists on discretionary
decisions resulting from internal prison policies. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 382, 527 S.E.2d at 757; see
also Pruitt v. State, 274 S.C. 565, 266 S.E.2d 779 (1980) (stating the traditional "hands off"
approach of South Carolina courts regarding internal prison policy).
However, such a deferential standard of review does not preclude a reversal of the DOC
determination. Rather, the ALJ conducts a review of DOC's actions to ensure the inmate grievance
is addressed in a fair, reasonable, and efficient manner. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 383, 527 S.E.2d at
757. Primarily, two potential grounds exist warranting an alteration to a custody classification: due
process and arbitrary action
A. Due Process
An inmate does not have a protected liberty interest in his custody status under the Due Process
clause of its own force. Slezak v. Evatt, 21 F.3d 590 (4th Cir. 1994). However, a state-created
liberty interest can exist in a custody status if the status "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, Chester has no protected liberty interest as to a custody status since the custody assigned "does
not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might conceivably create a
liberty interest." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486. Rather, classification of custody status is a common
practice within a prison setting. Such is especially so here when an inmate is held in security
detention while a crime is being investigated.
B. Arbitrary Decision
However, even if a protected liberty interest is not implicated, our Supreme Court has held that an
inmate may challenge a custody status if "prison officials have acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or from
personal bias" in determining his custody status. Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 381, 527 S.E.2d at 756
(citing Crowe v. Leeks, 273 S.C. 763, 259 S.E.2d 614 (1979)).
Here, the record shows that DOC has restricted the custody status of Chester by placing him in
security detention. The basis for the custody decision is that Chester is under investigation for a
criminal violation. Thus, the DOC decision involves a "good faith exercise of the discretionary
power of the prison officials in the maintenance of order, discipline, and security among the prison
population." Crowe, 273 S.C. at 764, 259 S.E.2d at 615. Therefore, the DOC decision will not be
disturbed on appeal.
III. Conclusion
The decision entered below by DOC against Michael Chester, #200907 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina