DONALD PRATOLA v. CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE AT BAYSIDE STATE PRISON

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4700-04T54700-04T5

DONALD PRATOLA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE AT

BAYSIDE STATE PRISON,

Defendant-Respondent.

_________________________________

 

Submitted May 8, 2006 - Decided May 31, 2006

Before Judges Cuff and Parrillo.

On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the

Department of Corrections.

Donald Pratola, appellant pro se.

Zulima V. Farber, Attorney General of New Jersey,

attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant Attorney General, Of counsel; Mr. DeAlmeida and Walter C. Kowalski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

This is a prison inmate classification appeal. Appellant, Donald Pratola, appeals from an April 5, 2005 final administrative decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request for a reduction in custody to full minimum custody. We affirm.

Appellant is a State prisoner at Bayside State Prison in Leesburg, where he is serving a life term for murder. He sought from prison administration a reduction of his "gang minimum custody" status to "full minimum custody", which is a prerequisite to halfway house placement. N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.12; N.J.A.C. 10A:20-4.4. On or about February 25, 2005, the prison's Institution Classification Committee (ICC) considered and denied appellant's request, determining that he was not suitable for such classification, pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5, based on the field account of his present offense of murder and his prior criminal record. Appellant appealed and the DOC affirmed the ICC's determination, concluding:

Be advised that after careful examination of all factors the I.I.C.C. Committees [sic] decision in denying your FM status and halfway house program request is upheld. Be advised that the decision rendered is in compliance with established provisions referenced under N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a) entitled "Discretion of Institutional Classification Committee" (I.C.C.); Factors to be Considered. Be advised that your gang minimum status remains and you are entitled to privileges associated with assigned status.

Appellant was advised that he would be reviewed for full minimum custody consideration within the next twelve months and prior to his future parole eligibility date of June 23, 2006.

On appeal, appellant raises the following issues:

I. THE (I.C.C.) INSTITUTIONALL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE AT BAYSIDE STATE PRISON VIOLATED PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW, WHEN THEY FAILED TO REINSTATE PLAINTIFF'S FULL MINIMUM CUSTODY STATUS TO RETURN PLAINTIFF BACK TO THE HALF-WAY HOUSE AFTER THREE RECOMMENDATION[S] WERE MADE BY THE NEW JERSEY STATE PAROLE BOARD FOR HIS RETURN BACK TO THE HALFWAY HOUSE.

II. THE (I.C.C.) CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS HERE AT BAYSIDE STATE PRISON VIOLATED PLAINTIFF'S CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN THEY FAILED TO PROTECT PLAINTIFF'S PRIVILEGE WHICH HE EARNED FOR HIS FULL MINIMUM CUSTODY STATUS, COMMUNITY RELEASE STATUS.

Essentially appellant argues that the DOC's denial of his request for full minimum custody violates his right to due process and is not in accordance with administrative regulations. We disagree.

At the outset, we noted that the judicial role in reviewing the decision of an administrative agency is limited. In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999); Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will not upset the determination of an administrative agency absent a showing that it was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or that it violated legislative policies. In re Musick, 143 N.J. 206, 216 (1996); Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963). Further, decisions of administrative agencies carry with them a "presumption of reasonableness." City of Newark v. Natural Res. Council in Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 983, 101 S. Ct. 400, 66 L. Ed. 2d 245 (1980). We may not vacate an agency's determination because of doubts as to its wisdom or because the record may support more than one result. See De Vitis v. New Jersey Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 489-90 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 102 N.J. 337 (1985).

On this score, the classification of prisoners, and the decision as to their custody status and privileges, rest solely within the discretion of the Commissioner of the DOC. Smith v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 30 (App. Div. 2001); N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6; N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.1 -91.2; see also Hluchan v. Fauver, 480 F. Supp. 103, 108 (D.N.J. 1979). Indeed, for due process purposes, inmates have no constitutionally protected liberty interest in reduced custody status. Smith, supra, 346 N.J. Super. at 29-30; Moore v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 103, 109 (App. Div. 2000); Muhammad v. Balicki, 327 N.J. Super. 369, 371-73 (App. Div. 2000); White v. Fauver, 219 N.J. Super. 170, 178 (App. Div. 1987). In fact, "[a] reduction in custody status is a privilege and not a right." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.2; Smith, supra, 346 N.J. Super. at 30; Moore, supra, 335 N.J. Super. at 109.

To be sure, the ICC and Commissioner do not have unbridled discretion in assigning a particular custody level. Smith, supra, 346 N.J. Super. at 33. Rather, the determination must comport with notions of fundamental administrative fairness and the Commissioner's broad "discretion must be circumscribed by the . . . factors found in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a)." Id. at 33. Those factors include a

[f]ield account of the present offense; prior criminal record; [p]revious incarcerations; [c]orrectional facility adjustment; the [o]bjective classification score; [r]eports from professional custody staff; and, [a]ny reason which, in the opinion of the Administrator and the Committee relates to the best interests of the inmate or the safe, orderly operation of the correctional facility or the safety of the community or the public at large.

[N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a).]

Here, appellant was given full consideration for a reduction in custody and has received annual classification reviews, which will continue. His present rejection for full minimum custody was based on the facts and circumstances surrounding the murder conviction for which he is presently serving a life sentence, and a prior history of assault. There was also a disciplinary charge which appellant received while incarcerated in 1997 for threatening another with bodily harm.

Although these are valid considerations, appellant nevertheless contends he was denied consideration even though the crime for which he is incarcerated is not per se disqualifying under N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.8. This argument is devoid of merit. Denial of appellant's request for a reduction in custody was made only after full consideration of his application. In rejecting the request based on the field account of his present offense and his history of assault, the DOC acted in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a) and N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.8. Indeed, it is not unreasonable to conclude, as did the DOC, that inmates such as appellant, whose present offense is murder and who has a prior criminal history of assault, should be secured at a higher level of custody, such as gang minimum custody. Consequently, we conclude the DOC's determination is rationally based, supported by substantial credible evidence, and does not offend notions of fundamental fairness.

It appears that appellant also challenges classification decisions prior to the April 5, 2005 determination, namely those decisions rendered on January 28, 2003 and December 21, 2004. However, his notice of appeal does not include these decisions, Sikes v. Tp. of Rockaway, 269 N.J. Super. 463, 465-66 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 138 N.J. 41 (1994); Campagna ex rel. Greco v. Am. Cyanamid Co., 337 N.J. Super. 530, 550 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 168 N.J. 294 (2001), and, in any event, any such appeal therefrom is grossly out of time. R. 2:4-1(b); R. 2:4-4(a).

Affirmed.

 

(continued)

(continued)

7

A-4700-04T5

May 31, 2006