ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Introduction
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Daniel Jones, an
inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since 1985. In his appeal, Jones complains that he
lost telephone privileges and was placed on cell restrictions after he was wrongly convicted of a prison disciplinary rule. For the reasons that follow, Jones' appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Analysis
On September 5, 2001, the Administrative Law Judge Division (ALJD) issued an En Banc Order in McNeil v. South
Carolina Department of Corrections, 00-ALJ-04-00336-AP (September 5, 2001). The decision holds that the ALJD's
appellate jurisdiction in inmate appeals is limited to two types of cases: (1) cases in which an inmate contends that prison
officials have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status; and (2) cases in which DOC
has taken an inmate's created liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing.
In this case, Jones asserts that his rights were violated when the Department placed him on cell restrictions for five days
and took away his telephone privileges for ten days. The statutory right to sentence-related credits is a protected liberty
interest under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 94 S. Ct. 2963 (1974); Al-Shabazz v. State,
338 S.C. at 369-370, 527 S.E.2d at 750. However, no liberty interest is implicated when an inmate is faced with lesser
penalties such as the loss of television, canteen, or telephone privileges. Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. at 372, 527 S.E.2d at
751, fn.8. Moreover, because it is a form of punishment that is neither "atypical" nor a "significant hardship," five days of
cell restrictions infringes no liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995).
The Department did not infringe a liberty interest when it punished Jones with cell and telephone restrictions for violating
a prison disciplinary rule. Accordingly, no jurisdiction exists in the Division to decide this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Jones' appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 15, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
