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

CAPTION:
Kenneth Wigfall #258402 vs. SCDOC

AGENCY:
South Carolina Department of Corrections

PARTIES:
Appellant:
Kenneth Wigfall #258402

Respondent:
South Carolina Department of Corrections
 
DOCKET NUMBER:
00-ALJ-04-00545-AP

APPEARANCES:
n/a
 

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


Brown Bldg.

 

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2022 South Carolina Administrative Law Court