Background
James Lynch appealed Administrative Law Court orders dismissing challenges to prison disciplinary convictions for sexual assault and hostage taking. Acting without counsel, he argued that SCDC waited two years and four months after the charges to hold his disciplinary hearings, contrary to agency policy. He also asserted that the employee who observed the conduct did not prepare the required incident report.
Lynch maintained that those departures deprived him of a fair hearing. He additionally referred on appeal to continued placement in a supermax unit and to the loss of opportunities to earn sentence-related credits. The Court of Appeals reviewed whether the asserted interests were sufficient to trigger judicial review and the procedural protections of due process.
The Court’s Holding
The court affirmed under Rule 220(b). An inmate grievance is judicially reviewable when it implicates a state-created liberty or property interest, including restraint that imposes an atypical and significant hardship compared with ordinary prison life. Internal procedural violations alone do not automatically create that constitutional interest.
The delay and incident-report problem did not satisfy the hardship standard. The loss of an opportunity to earn future sentence credits likewise differs from the loss of credits already accrued and does not create a protected liberty interest. Lynch’s supermax argument was not preserved because he had not raised it to the ALC and obtained a ruling. The appellate court therefore could not consider that theory for the first time.
Key Takeaways
- An SCDC policy violation does not by itself establish a due-process claim.
- Judicial review of prison discipline generally requires an atypical and significant hardship or another protected interest.
- The chance to earn future sentence credits is not treated like the loss of credits already accrued.
- An inmate must present a confinement-condition theory to the ALC to preserve it for appeal.
Why It Matters
The decision gives South Carolina lawyers a clean framework for screening prison disciplinary appeals. Counsel should identify the concrete restraint or vested benefit affected, not stop at proof that an agency missed its own deadline or reporting procedure. Where segregated placement is alleged, the record should describe duration, conditions, and comparison with ordinary incarceration.
The preservation ruling is equally practical. Potentially stronger facts about supermax confinement could not rescue an appeal when the ALC had no opportunity to decide them. Administrative briefs should therefore connect every asserted irregularity to a protected interest and obtain an express ruling on each ground.