JOSEPH ARUANNO v. NORTHERN STATE PRISON, et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4906-04T24906-04T2

JOSEPH ARUANNO,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NORTHERN STATE PRISON,

COMMISSIONER DEVON BROWN,

and ADMINISTRATOR LYDELL

SHERRER,

Defendants-Respondents.

________________________________________________________________

 

Submitted October 5, 2006 - Decided October 25, 2006

Before Judges Lefelt and Parrillo.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New

Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part,

Essex County, Docket No. SC-3623-04.

Appellant, Joseph Aruanno, submitted a

pro se brief.

Stuart Rabner, Attorney General,

attorney for respondents (Michael J.

Haas, Assistant Attorney General, of

counsel; Karen L. Jordan, Deputy Attorney

General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

The State transferred plaintiff inmate, Joseph Aruanno, from Northern State Prison to the Special Treatment Unit at Avenel (STU). He claims that some of his personal property was stolen at Northern State and not delivered to him at the STU. After attempting to obtain redress administratively, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Special Civil Part, which the court dismissed because jurisdiction lay in the Appellate Division, R. 2:2-3(a)(2), and because plaintiff had not exhausted available administrative remedies. Plaintiff appeals from that dismissal.

The trial court correctly found that jurisdiction for this dispute resides in the Appellate Division. However, instead of dismissing the matter, the trial court should have transferred it to us for resolution. R. 1:13-4(a). Because we now have the matter on plaintiff's appeal, we proceed to address the merits of the underlying dispute. R. 1:13-4(b).

Plaintiff had filed a "Resident Claim for Lost, Damaged or Destroyed Personal Property" on May 14, 2004. Mr. Bullard, a social worker, received the form. Thereafter, on May 24, 2004, plaintiff filed a Resident Grievance Form. He met with Paul K. Lagana, Assistant Superintendent of Avenel, on June 3, 2004, to discuss his missing property claim. According to an Interoffice Communication from Lagana to plaintiff, plaintiff had, allegedly by his own admission, received all the property that was inventoried prior to his transfer to Avenel. Nevertheless, plaintiff's claim of missing property was allegedly "referred to SID Schultz for disposition." Whether this referral actually occurred remains unclear.

On June 4, 2004, a staff member at Avenel signed a form recommending that plaintiff's grievance be resolved by "asked and answered," whatever that means. The staff member's signature cannot be read, so we are uncertain whether the recommendation was that of SID Schultz.

Similarly, although the same form indicates that the grievance was forwarded to the Department of Corrections, the only indication that this occurred is a notation on the bottom of the same form stating that "[t]his was an earlier grievance." But again, the signature is unclear and we are uncertain as to whether it was written by the Department of Corrections. Furthermore, the record contains no earlier grievance, only the claim for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property.

In any event, plaintiff filed an additional Resident Grievance Form on August 25, 2004. He claimed that, despite many letters, the staff at Avenel had refused to reply to his claim. He asked "can you tell me if they are going to refund or replace [the lost] items or not."

On September 3, 2004, this second grievance was allegedly forwarded to the Department of Corrections. The Resolution Recommendation section of the form is dated September 15, 2004 but is largely illegible. One part of the recommendation seems to say that "After Investigation - No property found."

The bottom of the August 25, 2004 Residence Grievance Form contains instructions that if grievants are not satisfied, they "can request to have [their] Grievance reviewed by the STU Clinical Director or DOC Superintendent of the facility." It is this last avenue of possible redress that the State claims plaintiff failed to exhaust. Plaintiff, however, claims that he was told by Mr. Bullard, the social worker, that he had exhausted all of his remedies, and was in fact told previously by Assistant Superintendent Lagana that they could not locate the stolen items.

Whether or not plaintiff exhausted the available remedies, our review leads us to conclude that the Department of Corrections failed to follow its own rules in resolving this matter. Plaintiff timely filed a Claim for Lost, Damaged or Destroyed Personal Property, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(a) and 2-6.3, along with a three-page addendum. The Department's rules mandate that "claims . . . denied by the Administrator shall not be processed any further. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f). In all cases of denial, the inmate shall be notified of the denial in writing by the Administrator with substantiating reasons." N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f). The rules require that several factors "be considered before recommending approval or disapproval of claims." N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a). The factors include whether the investigation revealed neglect by the correctional facility, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(1); whether care was exercised by facility staff to prevent the loss, damage or destruction to the property, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(2); whether the inmate exercise care in preventing the property loss, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(3); and whether it has been proven that the inmate did, in fact, possess the items in the claim, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(4). In our view, the administrator who provides the "substantiating reasons" for denying an inmate's claim must address factors relevant to the denial. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f).

The procedure followed in this matter and the response received by plaintiff to his claim and grievances, failed to comply with the Department's own rules. This was improper. County of Hudson v. Dep't of Corr., 152 N.J. 60, 70 (1997).

 
If the Department had properly replied to plaintiff's claim for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property, the subsequent grievances could have simply been rejected by reference to N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2. Consequently, we remand to the Department to properly address plaintiff's claim. We do not retain jurisdiction.

Remanded to the Department of Corrections.

(continued)

(continued)

5

A-4906-04T2

October 25, 2006