JONATHAN FAGGINS v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2499-04T52499-04T5

JONATHAN FAGGINS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Defendant-Respondent.

________________________________

 

Submitted April 24, 2006 - Decided May 25, 2006

Before Judges Parrillo and Holston, Jr.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the New

Jersey Department of Corrections.

Jonathan Faggins, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General of New Jersey,

attorney for respondent (Kimberly A. Sked, Deputy

Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This is a prison disciplinary appeal. Jonathan Faggins, an inmate confined at Southwoods State Prison, appeals a Department of Corrections (DOC) determination, after administrative proceedings, finding that he committed prohibited act *.005, threatening another person in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.

On appeal, Faggins claims he was denied due process. We are satisfied that the final agency decision should be affirmed as appellant was afforded all the process due, and the finding of guilt is supported by substantial credible evidence.

On October 26, 2004, at 8:10 p.m., Sergeant Dice saw Faggins walking in the correctional institution's compound, apparently after having gone to pill call for medication, with his shirttails hanging outside his pants. Dice told Faggins to keep his shirt tucked in while on the compound. Faggins, as he stepped into the stairwell, responded "Fuck You." As Faggins proceeded up the stairs, Dice, who was accompanied by Senior Corrections Officer (SCO) Smith, ordered him to come back down. According to Dice, as corroborated by Smith, Faggins threatened that if he came down there he would "fuck [Dice] up."

At this point, SCO Munyon joined Dice and Smith in restraining Faggins. Once restrained, Faggins was taken to a holding cell and ultimately placed in pre-hearing detention. Faggins was examined by DOC medical staff, who noted that Faggins suffered no injuries, bruises or other indicia of a physical altercation. Nor did Faggins make any such claim at that time.

As noted, Faggins was charged with *.005, threatening another with bodily harm. During the investigation of the charge, Faggins admitted to answering "Fuck you" to Dice and having stated "Fuck this jail and all this petty bullshit." At the ensuing hearing, at which he received the assistance of counsel substitute, Faggins denied that he ever threatened Rice, and instead testified that he was beaten by the corrections officers after words were exchanged over his shirt being pulled out. However, Faggins called no witnesses and submitted no documents on his behalf. He and counsel substitute were offered, but declined confrontation and cross-examination of any adverse witnesses.

Following the presentation of evidence and argument, the hearing officer, crediting the corrections officers' account, adjudicated Faggins guilty of the *.005 charge and recommended that he receive administrative sanctions of 15 days of detention, 240 days administrative segregation, and 240 days loss of commutation time. On administrative appeal, the guilty finding was affirmed, but the sanctions were reduced to 15 days of detention, 180 days loss of commutation time, and 180 days administrative segregation.

We find no basis to disturb the result, as we are satisfied that the DOC's ultimate determination is sufficiently grounded on credible evidence and should be affirmed. See Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

We are also satisfied that, contrary to appellant's arguments, the administrative adjudication comported with procedural due process. See Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995); McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995). Faggins timely received notice of the charge. A DOC sergeant thoroughly and timely investigated the matter. Faggins requested, and was provided, counsel substitute to assist him in his representation. Faggins and counsel substitute were shown the adjudication report and all documentary evidence submitted at the courtline adjudication. Faggins was permitted to make a statement and availed himself of that opportunity, as did his counsel substitute. In sum, Faggins was afforded an impartial hearing at which time he was free to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses, which he chose not to do. He also declined to submit documentary evidence or call witnesses on his behalf. In fact, line 15 of the adjudication report clearly demonstrates that Faggins and counsel substitute were afforded these opportunities, but declined. Moreover, counsel substitute, by signing at line 16 of the adjudication report, acknowledged that the preceding lines of the form accurately reflected what took place at Faggins' courtline adjudication. Under the circumstances, we are satisfied that Faggins received all the process to which he was entitled.

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-2499-04T5

May 25, 2006