COURT OF KHALIF JAMES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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

KHALIF JAMES,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

________________________________________________________________

Submitted April 10, 2013 Decided May 17, 2013

Before Judges Simonelli and Koblitz.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Khalif James, appellant pro se.

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

PER CURIAM

Khalif James is an inmate serving a life sentence with a thirty-year minimum for murder, as well as concurrent terms for robbery and possession of a weapon. He appeals from the April 16, 2012 final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) denying reimbursement for damage to his used word processor that

he claims was caused by multiple retaliatory searches of his cell at East Jersey State Prison (EJSP). After reviewing the record in light of the contentions advanced on appeal, we affirm.

James submitted a prison claim form for damaged property asserting that the disk drive of his Brother 5550 word processor had been damaged during a cell search. He listed the name and prison number of an inmate witness. In a letter dated December 30, 2011, attached to his claim form, James stated that he had received the used word processor from another inmate prior to that inmate's transfer. According to James, the inmate who gave it to him told him it had been purchased for $525.

James' complaint was investigated by Sergeant J. Pirnik. He submitted a report on January 15, 2012 stating that James had been interviewed and that no proof of negligence on the part of the staff was demonstrated. Sgt. Pirnik stated,

While . . . James produced a word processor with some damage, he could not prove when, or how the damage occurred. As this word processor is in fact several years old, and had been received from a previous owner, we cannot verify that it was in any better condition at the time of the cell frisk. Based on these factors, I can find no fault on the part of staff at EJSP, and recommend this claim be denied.

This determination was adopted in the final agency decision.

James raises the following issue on appeal:

POINT I: ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY'S DECISION DENYING CLAIMANT'S PROPERTY CLAIM IS WITHOUT MERIT BECAUSE OF ADMINISTRATI[VE] AGENCY'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6. 1 AND 2 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS.

In his appeal, James claims that his cell was unnecessarily searched twice before the search on December 29, 2011. He states that his word processor was damaged in the prior December 8, 2011 search1 and damaged further on December 29. He states that the inmate witness listed on his complaint was his cellmate at the time of the December 29 search, but not the December 8 search. He does not state what evidence this witness would be able to provide.

Our scope of review is limited, and James' 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.

James contends that the DOC's investigation was not sufficiently thorough because his named inmate witness was not interviewed. James does not indicate what this witness would have contributed to the fact-finding process. James provided no receipt or other documentary evidence of the value of his used word processor. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(5). The DOC's determination that James was unable to demonstrate negligence on the part of the staff, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(1), was supported by substantial credible evidence.

Affirmed.

1 In his letter brief James submitted copies of complaint forms and letters he had submitted dated October 19 and 20, 2011; and December 6, 8, 9 and 10, 2011.

5