South Carolina              
Administrative Law Court
Edgar A. Brown building 1205 Pendleton St., Suite 224 Columbia, SC 29201 Voice: (803) 734-0550

SC Administrative Law Court Decisions

Anthony M. Enriquez, #215961 vs. SCDOC

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Anthony M. Enriquez, #215961

South Carolina Department of Corrections



Grievance No. 0003-04

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.




Administrative Law Judge

Dated: January 18, 2005

Columbia, South Carolina

Brown Bldg.






Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court