QUDDOOS FARRA'D 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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

QUDDOOS FARRA'D,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

Before Judges Koblitz and Accurso.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Quddoos Farra'd, appellant pro se.

Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Joseph M. Micheletti, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Quddoos Farra'd is an inmate serving a thirty-three year sentence with a twelve-year and six months mandatory minimum

term1 for various aggravated assaults and other convictions. He appeals from the March 21, 2012 final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) denying reimbursement for damage to his used word processor, as well as lost property consisting of nine packs of cigars and a beard trimmer. Farra'd maintains that his property was damaged and lost during its transfer from East Jersey State Prison (EJSP) to New Jersey State Prison (NJSP). After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

After being kept in detention since June 9, 2010, on June 22 Farra'd was transferred from EJSP to NJSP to serve a penalty of administrative segregation imposed after he was found to have committed an institutional infraction. He states that his property was locked in his personal locker and that he gave staff the combination to that locker. Three weeks after his transfer he received his property. He submitted lost and damaged property claim forms attaching inmate property inventory forms in which he estimated the value of the word processor to be $179.99, the beard trimmer $39.50 and the lost cigars $47.30. In his affidavit, Farra'd listed two inmates, Al-Fatir Jones and Ricardo Freeny, as witnesses. He also submitted a word processor repair

form from Karl Business Machines reflecting a $208.65 estimate and a certification from Jones, who stated that Farra'd's word processor was working until June 9, 2010, when Farra'd was taken for a disciplinary hearing and did not return. Jones also stated that Farra'd "had a set of commissary [beard] trimmers[.]" Jones' certification makes no mention of cigars.

On January 12, 2011, EJSP Assistant Superintendent Charles E. DaVis denied Farra'd's claim, stating that the EJSP inventory sheet reflects only three loose cigars and no beard trimmer. DaVis stated that Farra'd admitted leaving some of his cigars on his bunk in the double-bunked cell. We granted the DOC's motion to remand this matter for further investigation.

On March 1, 2012, Sergeant J. Pirnik conducted the further investigation by interviewing Farra'd's former EJSP cellmate. This inmate, Freeny, denied being in possession of Farra'd's property and the items were not found in a search of Freeny's cell.2 Major Robert Hampe interviewed Farra'd the following day. Hampe reported that the particular damage Farra'd claimed had occurred to his word processor did not comport with the repair invoices he provided. Hampe also reported that Farra'd estimated the value of his Brother WP-3650 word processor to be $179.99

because that was its original purchase price. Karl Business Machines informed Hampe that this word processor had been discontinued over fifteen years ago and estimated its current value at less than $50. Hampe concluded that the cigars and trimmer, which did not appear on the inventory documents prepared before or after the transfer, could have been pilfered by Farra'd's former cellmate, Freeny,3 and that Farra'd could not prove his word processor was damaged during the transfer process. The DOC denied Farra'd's claim a second time, based on the March 2012 investigation.

Farra'd raises the following issues on appeal:

POINT I: AGENCY FAILED TO FOLLOW N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 PROCEDURE IN INVESTIGATING & DETERMINING CLAIM DENYING DUE PROCESS.

POINT II: DENIAL OF CLAIM WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE FINDING WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS.

Our scope of review is limited, and Farra'd's contentions must be analyzed in accordance with that standard. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Moore v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J. Super. 103, 110 (App. Div. 2000). "In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or . . .

not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Stallworth, supra, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).

When an inmate submits a property damage complaint, the DOC should investigate. See Barnes v. Sherrer, 401 N.J. Super. 172, 178-180 (App. Div. 2008). The investigation

shall consist of, but not be limited to:

1. Obtaining statements from the inmate, witnesses and correctional facility staff; and

2. Verifying that the inmate was authorized to have and did in fact, possess the personal property named in the claim.

[N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b).]

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.

Farra'd contends that the DOC's investigation was not sufficiently thorough, and that its conclusions are against the weight of the evidence. The DOC's determination that Farra'd was unable to demonstrate negligence on the part of the staff with regard to any damage to his used word processor, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(1), and that he did not exercise sufficient care to safeguard his beard trimmer and cigars, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(3), was supported by substantial credible evidence.

Affirmed.

1 Farra'd's sentence is reported differently by the parties. We use the term length reported in the institutional face sheet prepared by respondent and attached to their brief.

2 This search was conducted more than twenty months after the alleged disappearance of the cigars and trimmer.

3 Hampe mistakenly refers to him as "Feeney" in his report.

6