WILLIAM PITTMAN v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

 

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4074-11T2

WILLIAM PITTMAN,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS, ADRIENNE BARGE,

PAT MERRITT and GEORGE HAYMAN,

Respondents

______________________________

March 7, 2013

 

Submitted February 26, 2013 - Decided

 

Before Judges Reisner and Hayden.

 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

 

William Pittman, appellant pro se.

 

Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondents (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Marvin L. Freeman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff William Pittman appeals from a February 3, 2012 order dismissing his complaint on summary judgment. We affirm.

In his complaint, Pittman alleged that the Department of Corrections (DOC) failed to release him in a timely fashion, after his maximum release date was changed by an amended judgment of conviction (AJOC) on October 16, 2008. The AJOC awarded him additional gap time, thereby effectively shortening the prison time he was required to serve. Pittman's attorney mailed the AJOC to Bayside Prison by letter dated October 23, 2008. It was received on October 29, and after review by the prison's classification unit, Pittman was released two days later on October 31, 2008. In his complaint, Pittman alleged that, with the gap time credit, he should have been released on October 19 and therefore he spent an additional twelve days in prison, for which he was entitled to damages.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was granted, and plaintiff appealed. However, we remanded the case to the Law Division because the complaint was dismissed without a statement of reasons. Pittman v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., No. A-0525-10 (App. Div. July 15, 2011). On remand, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. A second judge, who had not previously presided over the case, considered the motion and granted it. That decision was supported by a detailed statement of reasons.

In his oral opinion placed on the record on February 3, 2012, Judge Richard J. Geiger viewed the complaint indulgently, as asserting claims under 42 U.S.C.A. 1983 and the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A. 59:1-1 to 59:12-3. In granting summary judgment, he relied upon the DOC's un-rebutted proofs that some administrative steps are needed before any inmate can be released; the process takes at least two days; and plaintiff was released two days after the AJOC reached the prison. The judge found no proof that plaintiff suffered sufficient damages to satisfy the threshold standard to pursue a claim under the TCA, N.J.S.A. 59:9-2d. The judge also found that plaintiff did not present evidence to establish that defendants acted with deliberate indifference under the standards applicable to a 1983 claim. See Moore v. Tartler, 986 F.2d 682, 686 (3d Cir. 1993). The judge found that defendant further failed to prove any personal involvement by the higher-level DOC officials named as individual defendants.

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, using the same standard employed by the trial court. Prudential Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Boylan, 307 N.J. Super. 162, 167 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 608 (1998). After reviewing the record, we conclude that there were no material facts in dispute, and even viewing the undisputed facts in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the DOC was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520, 540 (1995).

It was unfortunate that the AJOC did not reach the prison sooner, but the undisputed facts simply do not establish a viable legal claim under the TCA or 1983. We have considered plaintiff's appellate arguments and conclude they are without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Geiger.

Affirmed.