WALI PALMER 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5548-15T4

WALI PALMER,

        Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

        Respondent.

_________________________________

              Submitted January 17, 2018 – Decided January 30, 2018

              Before Judges Leone and Mawla.

              On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
              Corrections.

              Wali Palmer, appellant pro se.

              Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
              for respondent (Jason W. Rockwell, Assistant
              Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C.
              Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, on the
              brief).

PER CURIAM

        Wali Palmer is presently confined at East Jersey State Prison.

He appeals from a July 12, 2016 decision by the New Jersey
Department of Corrections (NJDOC) denying his claim for back pay

as a result of his job re-assignment to a lower paying job for

eleven months.    We affirm.

       Palmer was employed in an outside job as a garbage detail

worker, but then "laid in" or required to work as a lower paid

building sanitation worker within a prison housing unit.              Palmer

was moved because of allegations of inmate drug use, allegedly by

food service workers.    He and several food service workers tested

positive for contraband on an ion hand scan.

       An investigation ensued into alleged narcotics use by Palmer

and his fellow inmates.         A subsequent ion scan was negative as

were   a   subsequent   urine    test    and   strip    search.     Palmer's

reassignment to the lower paying job occurred between March 9,

2016 and February 7, 2017.         Thereafter, he was returned to his

former job.

       Palmer submitted an inmate grievance questioning why he was

laid-in and seeking reinstatement to his former job assignment.

The NJDOC responded to the grievance explaining Palmer had been

re-assigned   because   of   the   investigation       into   narcotics   use.

Palmer appealed the NJDOC's initial decision, which was affirmed

in the decision we now review.

       On appeal, Palmer argues his re-assignment was wrongful and

the result of a false-positive test.           He asserts he was deprived

                                     2                               A-5548-15T4
of due process and the ability to contest the job reassignment.

He argues he was deprived of his right to the higher wages for

nearly one year.

      We begin by reciting our standard of review.       "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).

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).

            An appellate court will not reverse an
            agency's final decision unless the decision
            is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable,"
            the determination "violate[s] express or
            implied legislative policies," the agency's
            action offends the United States Constitution
            or the State Constitution, or "the findings
            on which [the decision] was based were not
            supported by substantial, credible evidence in
            the record."

            [Ibid.   (quoting  Univ.   Cottage  Club  of
            Princeton N.J. Corp. v. N.J. Dep't of Envtl.
            Prot., 
191 N.J. 38, 48 (2007)).]

      Palmer's reassignment occurred as a result of the positive

test.   Although he questions the validity of the test, Palmer has

not provided us with an objective basis to conclude it was a false-

positive.     Therefore, the job reassignment was not arbitrary,

capricious, or unreasonable.


                                    3                           A-5548-15T4
       Moreover, Palmer does not possess a liberty or property

interest in a job assignment.              In Lorusso v. Pinchak, 
305 N.J.

Super. 117, 118 (App. Div. 1997), we affirmed the denial of

retroactive work credits and wages for a delay in assigning a

prisoner to employment.        We expressly rejected an argument similar

to the one advanced here, and held "inmate[s] ha[ve] 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."             Id. at 119.         Indeed, "because of

the    unique   circumstances       that       attend    the    administration      of

prisons,    reasonable       assumptions       of    inmates    cannot    always    be

equated    with     constitutionally-protected              liberty      interests."

Jenkins v. Fauver, 
108 N.J. 239, 253 (1987).

       Therefore, the decision to reassign Palmer did not deprive

him of a fundamental liberty or property interest.                     Nor can it be

considered      arbitrary,     capricious,          or   unreasonable     under    the

circumstances presented.

       Affirmed.




                                           4                                 A-5548-15T4