ORDERS:
ORDER
Introduction
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Judge Division ("Division") pursuant to the appeal of
Henry D. Sims, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections ("Department"). In his Step One
and Step Two grievances, Sims complains that the Department wrongfully heightened his security status
after he was convicted of a prison disciplinary infraction. Later, in his appeal to the Division, Sims
complains he was wrongfully convicted and requested that he be credited with good time and earned work
credits taken as a result of the conviction. For the reasons that follow, Sims' appeal must be dismissed.
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, Sims challenges his placement in security detention, lost good time and lost earned work
credits. I find that this tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Sims' appeal regarding his placement in security
detention. (1)
However, to obtain relief, Sims must show that the Department abridged a liberty interest in his custody
status without due process of law. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338
S.C. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Generally, an inmate has no liberty interest in his security and custody
classification. Brown v. Evatt, 322 S.C. 189, 470 S.E.2d 848 (1996). However, if it imposes an "atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life," an inmate's custody
status infringes a protectable liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995). Cir.1998).
In this case, Sims has failed to allege any facts that suggest his confinement may constitute an atypical or
significant hardship. Accordingly, Sims' appeal is DISMISSED.
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
September 11, 2002
Columbia, South Carolina
1. However, this tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain Sims' appeal with regard to the propriety of his prison disciplinary
conviction and its corresponding alleged loss of earned sentence credits. Sims failed to challenge his loss of earned
sentence credits in his Step One and Step Two grievances, affording the Department no opportunity to address his claims.
It is axiomatic that an inmate must exhaust his administrative remedies through the Department before an administrative
appeal may be entertained by the Division. |
