ORDERS:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter comes before the Administrative Law Court (“ALC”) pursuant to the appeal of
Larry Hendricks, an inmate incarcerated with the Department of Corrections (“Department”). In his
appeal, Hendricks alleges that the Department has deprived him of a state-created liberty interest by
failing to comply with a departmental policy setting forth a list of reference books to be maintained
in the prison library. The Department has filed a Motion to Dismiss Hendricks’s appeal for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction.
The ALC’s jurisdiction to review final decisions of the Department is derived from the
decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court in Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 527 S.E.2d 742
(2000), which created a new avenue by which inmates could seek review of final decisions of the
Department in non-collateral matters under the Administrative Procedures Act, “ensur[ing] that an
inmate receives due process.” Id. at 369, 527 S.E.2d at 750. In Al-Shabazz, the Court recognized
that the administrative matters entitled to review by the ALC “typically arise in two ways: (1) when
an inmate is disciplined and punishment is imposed and (2) when an inmate believes prison officials
have erroneously calculated his sentence, sentence-related credits, or custody status.” Id.
Subsequently, in Sullivan v. South Carolina Department of Corrections, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d
124 (2003), the Court clarified the ALC’s jurisdiction over inmate cases, holding that for the ALC
to have jurisdiction over an inmate’s claim, it must implicate a state-created liberty interest.
Hendricks’s grievance does not arise in any of the typical ways enumerated in Al-Shabazz;
it is neither the result of a disciplinary proceeding in which he received a punishment nor a challenge
to his sentence calculation, sentence-related credits, or custody status. To determine whether
Hendricks’s grievance is entitled to review before the ALC, the ALC must decide whether it in some
other way implicates a state-created liberty interest. Sullivan, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d at 127.
The lack of a certain number of reference books in the prison library is not a loss of sentence-related credits, which would be protected by minimal due process requirements. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974); Al-Shabazz, 338 S.C. at 369-70, 527 S.E.2d at 750. Nor does
the lack of a certain number of reference books in the prison library result in the kind of “atypical,
significant hardship on [Hendricks] in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life” which would
implicate a state-created liberty interest pursuant to Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).
See Sullivan, 355 S.C. 437, 586 S.E.2d at 128 (quoting Sandin). Further, although Hendricks claims
that the Department has failed to comply with its own policy regarding the number of reference
books to be available in prison libraries, well-established law explains that an agency’s failure to
follow its own procedural rules and regulations does not violate an aggrieved party’s constitutional
due process rights since no such constitutional right exists. See Bd. of Curators v. Horowitz, 435
U.S. 78, 92 (1978); Hernandez v. Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir.1986); Ogburn-Matthews v.
Loblolly Partners (Ricefields Subdivision), 332 S.C. 551, 562, 505 S.E.2d 598, 603 (Ct.App. 1998),
overruled on other grounds by Brown v. S. C. Dep’t of Health and Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507, 560
S.E.2d 410 (2002).
Because the subject of this appeal does not implicate a state-created liberty interest, I find that
Hendricks’s grievance is not entitled to review by the ALC.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Hendricks’s appeal is dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction;
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
C. DUKES SCOTT
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE
June 23, 2004
Columbia, South Carolina |
