LUIS A. TORRES v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
                      APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
     This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."
      Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the
        parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.




                                       SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                       APPELLATE DIVISION
                                       DOCKET NO. A-1128-16T3

LUIS A. TORRES,

        Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

     Respondent.
____________________________

              Submitted February 6, 2018 – Decided March 9, 2018

              Before Judges Hoffman and Gilson.

              On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
              Corrections.

              Luis A. Torres, appellant pro se.

              Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
              for respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant
              Attorney General, of counsel; Kai W. Marshall-
              Otto, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

        Appellant Luis Torres, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison,

appeals from a September 29, 2016 Department of Corrections (DOC)
final agency decision denying his claim for reinstatement to his

previous work assignment in the prison kitchen.     We affirm.

        On March 3, 2016, the DOC conducted a search of all kitchen

workers, including Torres.    The DOC used an ion scan to detect the

presence of controlled dangerous substances (CDS) on the hands and

clothing of workers.     Torres tested positive for CDS on the ion

scan; however, a subsequent urine test came back negative, and a

search of his property found no CDS.

        Effective March 4, 2016, the DOC reassigned Torres from food

services to a building sanitation assignment.     Torres alleges the

DOC reassigned him because of the positive ion scan.    Torres filed

a grievance with the DOC challenging his reassignment from kitchen

duty.      On September 29, 2016, the DOC issued a final agency

decision denying the grievance.       The DOC explained, "Inmates do

not have a right to obtain or to remain in a particular job

assignment.     Inmates are routinely reassigned as it pertains to

the security and operational needs of the facility."

        On appeal, Torres argues his reassignment violated his due

process rights, asserting the DOC decision was arbitrary and

capricious.     He seeks an order reinstating him to the kitchen

assignment and awarding back pay and work credits retroactive to

the date of termination.



                                  2                          A-1128-16T3
     "In   light    of    the    executive     function    of   administrative

agencies, judicial capacity to review administrative actions is

severely limited."        George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth.,


137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994) (citation omitted). The "final determination

of an administrative agency . . . is entitled to substantial

deference."     In re Eastwick Coll. LPN-to-RN Bridge Program, 
225 N.J. 533, 541 (2016) (citing Univ. Cottage Club of Princeton N.J.

Corp. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 
191 N.J. 38, 48 (2007)).                   "An

appellate court will not reverse an agency's final decision unless

the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable . . . .'"

Ibid. (quoting Univ. Cottage Club, 
191 N.J. at 48).

     Moreover,     inmates      do   not   possess   a   liberty   or    property

interest in a job assignment.          Lorusso v. Pinchak, 
305 N.J. Super.
 117, 118 (App. Div. 1997) (affirming the denial of retroactive

work credits and wages for a delay in assigning a prisoner to

employment).    An "inmate has no liberty interest in a particular,

or any, job assignment, nor in the wages or credits that can be

earned by performing a prison work assignment." Id. at 119 (citing

James v. Quinlan, 
866 F.2d 627, 629 (3d Cir. 1989)).                    "[I]nmates

entering prison have no concrete expectation of being given a job

assignment."     Ibid.     While inmates may believe the DOC will not

change work assignments absent misconduct, "because of the unique

circumstances      that    attend      the     administration      of    prisons,

                                           3                               A-1128-16T3
reasonable assumptions of inmates cannot always be equated with

constitutionally-protected liberty interests." Jenkins v. Fauver,


108 N.J. 239, 253 (1987).

     Here,    Torres   claims   the    DOC    arbitrarily   terminated     his

kitchen work assignment following the ion scan results.              However,

Torres has no constitutionally enforceable right to a particular

prison work assignment, and such work assignments are within the

sound discretion of the DOC.          The record shows the DOC reviewed

the work assignment status of certain inmates, and determined it

appropriate to reassign Torres and other inmates out of the kitchen

detail.      Notwithstanding    this      reassignment,     Torres   remains

eligible to reapply for the kitchen assignment.

     The decision to reassign Torres did not deprive him of a

fundamental liberty or property interest.              Nor do we find the

decision     arbitrary,   capricious,        or   unreasonable   under     the

circumstances presented.

     Affirmed.




                                      4                               A-1128-16T3