EUGENE SEABROOKS 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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

EUGENE SEABROOKS,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

______________________________________

December 15, 2015

Submitted October 28, 2015 Decided

Before Judges Haas and Manahan.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Eugene Seabrooks, appellant pro se.

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

PER CURIAM

Eugene Seabrooks appeals from a final determination of the Department of Corrections (DOC), adjudicating him guilty of one count of disciplinary infraction *.803/*.216 (attempt to distribute or sell prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia), and three counts of disciplinary infraction *.803/*.306 (attempt to disrupt or interfere with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility), all in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. Following our review of the record in light of the applicable law, we affirm.

Seabrooks was sanctioned on the *.803/*.216 charge with credit for time served, 365 days of administrative segregation, 365 days loss of commutation time, permanent loss of contact visits, and 365 days of urine monitoring. Regarding the *.803/*.306 charges, Seabrooks was sanctioned on each of the three counts consecutively with credit for time served, 10 days of detention, 120 days of administrative segregation, and 120 days loss of commutation time for each charge. Seabrooks filed an administrative appeal in May 2014, which was upheld in June 2014.

After a lengthy investigation, Seabrooks was charged in April 2014 for his role in a conspiracy to obtain contraband, including drugs and cellular phones, through compromised New Jersey State Prison staff. Specifically, the charging documents allege that Seabrooks conspired with other inmates to distribute narcotics within New Jersey State Prison and to utilize civilian family members to conduct financial transactions.

After the charges were filed, Seabrooks was placed in pre-hearing detention and the matter was referred to a disciplinary hearing officer. Seabrooks pled not guilty and was granted the assistance of counsel substitute pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.12. Seabrooks's disciplinary hearing was adjourned twice based upon his requests for a polygraph examination and to review the video of his interview with a Special Investigation Division (SID) officer. The hearing was adjourned a third time to allow the hearing officer time to review the evidence. The hearing concluded in May 2014.

In his defense, Seabrooks maintained that he participated in an arrangement to distribute tobacco, not narcotics. Seabrooks denied admitting to the SID officer that a civilian alleged to have received money orders was a relative, and sought to offer written statements from other inmates attesting to his non-involvement.1 Seabrooks's request for a polygraph examination was denied, as was his request for production of copies of his visiting list. The hearing officer did not consider the inmates' statements.

The hearing officer based the finding of guilt and decision to sanction Seabrooks on the disciplinary report, pre-hearing placement authorization, copies of postal money orders addressed to Seabrooks's family members, the video recording of Seabrooks's interview with the SID officer, and the confidential SID report.2

Seabrooks raises the following points on appeal

POINT I

THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER VIOLATES APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE VACATED.

POINT II

THE INFRACTION WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED BY [N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a)].

Seabrooks argues he was denied his right to due process as his disciplinary hearing was not conducted within three calendar days after being placed in pre-hearing detention pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(c), and the hearing did not commence within forty-eight hours of the adjournments pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.7(a)(1). Seabrooks also argues the hearing officer lacked impartiality since the SID investigator's conclusions were based on speculation rather than independent proof, and because various defenses raised by Seabrooks were overlooked.

The DOC has "broad discretionary powers" to promulgate regulations aimed at maintaining security and order inside correctional facilities. Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239, 252 (1987). Moreover, it has been noted that "[p]risons are dangerous places, and the courts must afford appropriate deference and flexibility to administrators trying to manage this volatile environment." Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 576, 584 (App. Div. 1999).

Prison disciplinary hearings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full spectrum of rights due to a criminal defendant does not apply. See Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Prisoners are, however, entitled to certain limited protections. Ibid. These protections include written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing, an impartial tribunal which may consist of personnel from the central office staff of the prison, a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the assistance of a counsel-substitute, and a right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the sanctions imposed. Id. at 525-33; see also McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 193-96 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 217-18 (1995). Seabrooks was afforded these rights.

We have a limited role in reviewing the decisions of administrative agencies. We will not reverse an agency decision unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. In re Proper Quest Academy Charter School of Montclair Founders Group, 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013). The relevant standard of review is "whether the findings made could reasonably have been reached on sufficient credible evidence present in the record considering the proofs as a whole[.]" In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999) (quoting Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)) (internal quotation marks omitted). N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a) provides that "[a] finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act."

Predicated upon our review of the record, we conclude the disciplinary hearing complied with all procedural due process requirements. Avant, supra, 67 N.J. at 521-22. We find no merit in Seabrooks's contention that he was denied due process based on the delay in commencing the hearing since the first two adjournments were due to his discovery requests and the third adjournment was to allow the hearing officer time to review the evidence. See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(c) ("Inmates confined in [pre-hearing detention] shall receive a hearing within three calendar days of their placement . . . unless there are exceptional circumstances,unavoidable delaysor reasonable postponements.").

Here, despite the denial of Seabrooks's requests for the administration of a polygraph and for consideration of inmates' statements, there was substantial credible evidence to support the finding of guilt. Taylor, supra, 158 N.J. at 656. The hearing officer relied on investigative reports, a taped interview of Seabrooks and documents (money orders), all of which inculpated him. Based on this evidence, the hearing officer concluded the punishment was commensurate with the infractions. The DOC agreed with both decisions. We agree as well.

Affirmed.

1 Seabrooks also alleged that counsel substitute was a confidential informant without providing proof of same.

2 Seabrooks was provided the opportunity but chose not to cross-examine witnesses.