JORGE RIVERA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0

JORGE RIVERA,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

June 8, 2015

Before Judges Hoffman and Whipple.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Jorge Rivera, appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Megan E. Shafranski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Jorge Rivera appeals from a September 11, 2013, final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections ("DOC") denying his property damage claim. We affirm.

Rivera is an inmate at South Woods State Prison ("SWSP"). On January 18, 2013, Rivera was detained for fifteen days in disciplinary confinement, and his property was secured in a locker. Rivera's property was returned to him on January 30, 2013. On February 7, 2013, Rivera filed property claims for the alleged loss of his radio, sweatpants, sweatshirt, and cigarettes/bugler tobacco, as well as other property.

Lieutenant Chard investigated the matters and recommended that Rivera's claims be denied because he failed to prove that SWSP was negligent in handling or storing his belongings. Regarding Rivera's property claim for the buglers, Lieutenant Chard noted that the tobacco was purchased up to five months prior to Rivera's disciplinary detention. Thus, it was highly unlikely that Rivera still possessed it at the time of his detention. Moreover, SWSP's inmate handbook requires that receipts for non-perishable items must be no more than sixty days old, and Rivera's receipts exceeded this time requirement.

On March 12, 2013, an SWSP Associate Administrator denied Rivera's property claim because "no evidence was presented by [Rivera] indicating negligence on the part of this institution." His property was inventoried, packed, stored, and re-issued to Rivera, according to SWSP's policy. Additionally, Rivera signed theinventory sheetindicating thathe receivedall ofhis property.

Rivera then forwarded correspondence appealing the denial of his property claims to the DOC Division of Operations. On September 11, 2013, the Director of the Division of Operations issued the final agency decision denying Rivera's property damage claim, stating that SWSP followed the proper procedures.

Our review of an agency's decision is limited. We will only reverse when the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); see also In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999) (indicating that a court must uphold an agency's findings, even if "it would have reached a different result," so long as "sufficient credible evidence in the record" exists to support the agency's conclusions).

When deciding an inmate's property claim, the DOC should consider the following factors set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)

1. Whether the investigation revealed any neglect by the correctional facility;

2. Whether care was exercised by facility staff preventing property loss, damage or destruction;

3. Whether the inmate exercised care in preventing property loss, damage or destruction;

4. Whether it has been proven that the inmate was authorized to have and did, in fact, possess the item(s) named in the claim;

5. Whether sufficient information has been supplied by the inmate, including proper receipts, witnesses and investigative reports;

6. Whether the inmate submitted the claim in a timely manner;

7. Whether the loss or damage exceeds authorized amounts of correctional facility personal property limits;

8. Whether the personal property is considered contraband; and

9. Whether other reviewers recommended denial of the claim and the reasons therefor.

Rivera argues that he should be reimbursed for the property because the Administrator did not conduct a thorough investigation or he would have concluded that Rivera properly secured his personal property. Applying the deferential standard, we conclude that the DOC's final decision is supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. The record indicates that Rivera's claims were properly investigated and that the DOC's determination that Rivera was unable to demonstrate negligence on the part of the staff was not arbitrary or capricious.

Affirmed.