ORDERS:
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This matter is before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of
Kenneth Wigfall, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department") since
September 21, 1998. On February 28, 2000, Inmate Wigfall was convicted of violating Disciplinary
Code 2.3, Trafficking and Trading, after a dough cutter he signed out was discovered missing. As a
result of his conviction, Inmate Wigfall received a reprimand and a loss of 30 days of canteen
privileges. Inmate Wigfall filed a grievance with the Department on February 29, 2000, and received a
final decision from the Department on July 3, 2000. On August 11, Inmate Wigfall filed this appeal
pursuant to the jurisdiction conferred by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338
S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742 (2000). In his appeal, Inmate Wigfall asserts that the charge and conviction
are unfair because he did nothing wrong.
I find that Inmate Wigfall has failed to allege any facts sufficient to support a cognizable due process
claim. The Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process applies only to the
deprivation of a life, liberty, or property interest. Board of Regents of State College v. Roth, 408 U.S.
564, 569, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 2705 (1972). 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. Therefore, an inmate facing a disciplinary proceeding in
which he loses only canteen privileges is not entitled to an Al-Shabazz-type hearing. See Al-Shabazz,
338 S.C. at 372, 527 S.E.2d at 751, citing Wolff, 418 U.S. at 571 ("We do not suggest, however, that
the procedures required by today's decision for the deprivation of good time credits would also be
required for the imposition of lesser penalties.").
While the circumstances of this case may seem unfair to Inmate Wigfall, the loss of canteen privileges
is not an "atypical and significant hardship" in the scheme of imprisonment and presents no deprivation
that requires due process. Accordingly, the Department's final decision is affirmed.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Appellant's appeal is DISMISSED, and the Final Decision of the
Department is AFFIRMED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________________________
JOHN D. GEATHERS
Administrative Law Judge
May 8, 2001
Columbia, South Carolina |
