Thompson v. SCDC

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Thomas Thompson, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent.

Appellate Case No. 2020-000356

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Milton G. Kimpson, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2022-UP-249
Submitted May 1, 2022 – Filed June 8, 2022

AFFIRMED

Thomas Thompson, pro se.

Imani Diane Byas, of South Carolina Department of
Corrections, of Columbia, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Thompson appeals the Administrative Law Court's
(ALC's) order dismissing his appeal from the South Carolina Department of
Corrections' (SCDC's) determination that inmates participating in the Prison
Industries Employment Program were required to wear horizontally striped
uniforms during their work shifts to ensure their orange uniforms were clean for
other activities. On appeal, Thompson argues SCDC's requirement for him to wear
a horizontally striped uniform constituted a violation of his Eighth Amendment
right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. We hold the ALC did not err
in dismissing Thompson's appeal. Accordingly, we affirm pursuant to Rule
220(b), SCACR, and the following authorities: Allen v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 434
S.C. 114, 118, 862 S.E.2d 268, 270 (Ct. App. 2021) ("An inmate who seeks to
challenge a final decision of SCDC may seek review of an administrative matter
under the [Administrative Procedures Act1 (APA)]."); Howard v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 399 S.C. 618, 625, 733 S.E.2d 211, 215 (2012) ("The ALC has subject
matter jurisdiction under the [APA] . . . to hear properly perfected appeals from the
SCDC's final orders in administrative or non-collateral matters."); Sanders v. S.C.
Dep't of Corr., 379 S.C. 411, 417, 665 S.E.2d 231, 234 (Ct. App. 2008) (stating an
appellate court may reverse or modify the ALC's decision if it is controlled by an
error of law or is clearly erroneous in view of the substantial evidence on the
record); Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354, 369, 527 S.E.2d 742, 750 (2000)
("[A]dministrative matters 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."); Howard, 399 S.C. at 630, 733 S.E.2d at 218 ("[A] matter is
reviewable by the ALC where an inmate's appeal also implicates a state-created
liberty or property interest . . . ."); Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437,
442, 586 S.E.2d 124, 126 (2003) ("[S]tates may create liberty interests which are
protected by the Due Process Clause, but . . . 'these interests will be generally
limited to freedom from restraint which . . . imposes atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.'"
(quoting Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995))); Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of
Corr., 361 S.C. 327, 331, 605 S.E.2d 506, 508 (2004) ("Summary dismissal may
be appropriate where the inmate's grievance does not implicate a state-created
liberty or property interest.").

AFFIRMED.2

GEATHERS and HILL, JJ., and LOCKEMY, A.J., concur.

1
S.C. Code Ann. §§ 1-23-10 to -680 (2005 & Supp. 2021).
2
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.