I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by William Adams, #124723 (Adams) 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, Adams presents a claim that amounts to a complaint challenging the conditions of
confinement. Adams argues that the inmate phone system should be changed to reduce the costs
of inmate telephone calls and to offer debit calling. 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 Adams.
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 telephone system and which company will be the facility's carrier are
matters within the discretion of DOC officials. Such decisions will not be reversed unless
arbitrary or capricious. Here Manning officials have reviewed the claim and determined that the
telephone system is adequate for inmate use. 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 William Adams, #124723 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 13, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina