I. Statement of the Case
This matter is an appeal by Anthony M. Enriquez, #215961 (Enriquez) 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, Enriquez presents a claim that challenges a DOC decision that resulted in a guilty verdict
to the charge of use or possession of narcotics, marijuana, or unauthorized drugs. As a
consequence, DOC imposed a sanction of the loss of 30 days of canteen privileges, 30 days
phone restriction, five hours of extra duty, and 120 days of visitation restriction. Enriquez did
not lose any good time credits.
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, DOC removed canteen privileges and visitation privileges for a short period of time and
imposed phone restrictions and five hours of extra duty. Such actions do not implicate a state-created liberty interest since DOC's actions are not atypical and are not actions that impose a
significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Rather, such sanctions are
not unusual in a prison 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 Anthony M. Enriquez, #215961 is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________________________
RAY N. STEVENS
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: January 18, 2005
Columbia, South Carolina
