Allen v. SCDC, 886 S.E.2d 671

Background:

Quincy Allen, a formerly death‑sentenced inmate at Broad River CI, filed a grievance challenging SCDC's denial of visitation with persons not known to him prior to incarceration.
SCDC denied the grievance; Allen appealed to the Administrative Law Court (ALC), which dismissed his appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the ALC's dismissal. Allen sought certiorari from the South Carolina Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari, clarified the law distinguishing ALC subject matter jurisdiction from the requirement to allege a state‑created liberty interest, and reviewed whether Allen's claim implicated such an interest.
The Court held the ALC has subject matter jurisdiction over properly perfected inmate appeals but may summarily dismiss appeals that do not implicate a state‑created liberty or property interest sufficient to trigger procedural due process protections.
Applying that standard, the Court affirmed the dismissal because denial of visitation with persons unknown before incarceration did not implicate a state‑created liberty interest entitling Allen to relief.

Issues:

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ALC has subject matter jurisdiction over properly filed inmate appeals	Allen argued the ALC lacked jurisdiction absent a state‑created liberty interest	SCDC argued the ALC has jurisdiction over properly perfected appeals regardless of liberty‑interest allegations	Held: ALC has subject matter jurisdiction over properly perfected appeals; alleging a state‑created liberty interest is not a jurisdictional prerequisite
Whether an inmate must allege deprivation of a state‑created liberty interest to obtain relief	Allen contended his visitation claim implicated a protected interest	SCDC contended relief requires showing deprivation of a state‑created liberty interest	Held: Relief from an administrative error requires proof the error deprived the inmate of a state‑created liberty interest invoking due process
Whether the ALC may summarily dismiss appeals that do not implicate a state‑created interest	Allen argued dismissal without hearing was improper	SCDC argued the ALC may summarily dismiss non‑liberty‑interest claims	Held: ALC may summarily dismiss appeals that do not implicate a state‑created liberty or property interest sufficient to trigger due process
Whether denial of visitation with persons unknown before incarceration implicates a state‑created liberty interest	Allen argued the visitation restriction implicated a liberty interest requiring process	SCDC argued such visitation does not create a protected liberty interest	Held: Denial of visitation with persons not known pre‑incarceration does not implicate a state‑created liberty interest; dismissal affirmed

Key Cases Cited

Al-Shabazz v. State, 338 S.C. 354 (S.C. 2000) (inmate appeals from SCDC final administrative decisions are reviewable under the APA; due process applies only if a state‑created liberty interest is implicated)
Slezak v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 361 S.C. 327 (S.C. 2004) (ALC has jurisdiction over properly perfected inmate appeals and may summarily decide appeals not implicating a state‑created liberty interest)
Sullivan v. S.C. Dep't of Corr., 355 S.C. 437 (S.C. 2003) (treatment of liberty‑interest requirement as jurisdictional was erroneous and clarified)
Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500 (U.S. 2006) (distinguishes true subject‑matter jurisdiction from nonjurisdictional statutory requirements)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (state‑created liberty interests protected by due process are generally limited to restraints imposing atypical and significant hardships)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (U.S. 1974) (procedural due process protections in prison disciplinary context)
United States v. Cotton, 535 U.S. 625 (U.S. 2002) (definition and importance of subject‑matter jurisdiction)
State v. Gentry, 363 S.C. 93 (S.C. 2005) (state definition of subject‑matter jurisdiction)