ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Introduction
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of Jackie Logan, an
inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") until June 18, 2001. In his appeal, Logan
complained that the Department gave him forty hours of extra duty in violation of his constitutional rights. On July 26,
2001, the Department moved to dismiss Logan's case on the ground that Logan's appeal was mooted by his release. For
reason other than that proposed by the Department, Logan's appeal is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Analysis
On September 5, 2001, the Division 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 Division'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 the Department has taken an inmate's created
liberty interest as punishment in a major disciplinary hearing.
In this case, Logan asserts that his rights were violated when the Department gave him extra duty as punishment for
violating a Department rule. 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," extra duty infringes no
liberty interest. Boglin v. Weaver, 2001 WL 228172 (S.D. Ala. March 1, 2001), citing Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
486 (1995).
The Department did not infringe a liberty interest when it punished Logan with forty hours of extra duty for violating a
prison disciplinary rule. Accordingly, no jurisdiction exists in the Division to decide this matter.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Logan's appeal must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
October 12, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
