J.S. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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

J.S.,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________________

January 15, 2014

Submitted November 13, 2013 Decided

Before Judges Messano and Rothstadt.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

J.S., appellant pro se.

John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Shirley Dickstein, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

J.S.1, an inmate at the New Jersey State Prison, appeals from a February 13, 2012 final administrative decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) adjudicating him guilty of institutional infraction *.306, conduct which disrupts the orderly running of the institution, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a).

J.S.argues:

POINT I

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DID NOT SERVE THE APPELLANT WITH THE DISCIPLINARY REPORT WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT.

POINT II

THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DID NOT GIVE A HEARING TO THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT.

We reject these contentions and affirm because any delay was created by J.S.'s actions and did not result in any prejudice to him.

At the time the subject charges were brought against J.S., he was housed under constant watch in a mental health area of the prison. On January 12, 2012, he caused a disturbance when he could not obtain medical treatment for an alleged injury which he claimed resulted from another inmate stabbing him. Because prison officials would not respond to his demands, J.S. blocked the window in his cell with his mattress. When correction officers removed the mattress, he then began to bang his head repeatedly on his cell door's glass window.

In response to J.S.'s actions, the correction officers entered his cell and restrained him. Ultimately, prison officials arranged for his transport to another facility so that he could be medically and psychologically evaluated.2 Because of his relocation to another facility, prison officials could not serve J.S. with a statement of the prison's formal charges against him until at least January 20, 2012.

At a hearing ultimately held on January 31, 2012, J.S. appeared with substitute counsel as he previously requested. J.S. did not call any witnesses or request to cross examine any witnesses upon whose reports the hearing officer relied. Evidently, J.S. only stated that he had been stabbed but did not want to disclose the identity of the individual who injured him.

The hearing officer relied on the internal reports filed in support of the charges to determine that J.S., in fact, was guilty of the charge relating to the disturbance he caused. He then imposed sanctions of fifteen days detention and 365 days administrative segregation. J.S. was also required to be treated for mental health issues. J.S. subsequently appealed that determination and, on February 13, 2012, the prison's assistant superintendent upheld the hearing officer's decision. J.S. then filed this appeal.

The scope of our review of an agency decision is limited. "Ordinarily, an appellate court will reverse the decision of the administrative agency only if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980) (citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil Service, 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)); see alsoSzemple v. Dep't of Corr., 384 N.J. Super. 245, 248 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 187 N.J. 82, (2006). "Our role is to engage in a 'careful and principled consideration of the agency record and findings.'" DeCamp v. New Jersey Dept. of Corrections, 386 N.J. Super 631, 636, (App. Div. 2006) (quoting Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 204, (App. Div. 2000)). However, "[w]e cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency where its findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 375 N.J. Super. 347, 352 (App. Div. 2005) (citing Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579-80).

On appeal, J.S. argues that the DOC violated its regulations by denying him procedural safeguards by not serving the report of his charges in a timely manner and by holding him in pre- hearing detention too long. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-92; 10A:4-9.8(c). These arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(2), because any delay in delivering the reports and holding J.S. was the direct result of completing his necessary medical and psychological evaluations before he could be served with the required reports. His relocation for those evaluations constituted "exceptional circumstances" as provided by both regulations he relies upon, and the delay did not prejudice J.S. in any manner. Importantly too, there is no dispute that his ultimate adjudication of violating the institution's regulations was supported by substantial credible evidence. Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995); Negron v. Dept of Corrections, 220 N.J. Super. 425, 429 (App. Div. 1987).

Affirmed.

1 We restrict the plaintiff's identity to his initials because the matter requires a discussion of the plaintiff's private mental health issues.

2 A January 23, 2012 confidential psychological evaluation confirmed that J.S. suffered from a mental illness that had a "mild impact" on his behavior.