SHAZAM MEIGHOO v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
Annotate this CaseNOT 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-5072-18T3
SHAZAM MEIGHOO,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted September 15, 2020 – Decided September 25, 2020
Before Judges Yannotti and Mawla.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Shazam Meighoo, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sookie Bae, Assistant Attorney General, of
counsel; Beonica A. McClanahan, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Shazam Meighoo is an inmate in the State's correctional system. He
appeals from a final determination of the New Jersey Department of Corrections
(NJDOC), which found he possessed or introduced a weapon into the
correctional facility and imposed disciplinary sanctions. We affirm.
In June 2019, Meighoo was incarcerated in Northern State Prison (NSP).
He is serving an eighteen-year sentence as a result of his convictions for
aggravated manslaughter, unlawful possession of a weapon, and endangering
the welfare of a child. Meighoo will not be eligible for parole until March 15,
2030.
On June 3, 2019, Officer J. Pinheiro conducted a random search of
Meighoo's cell. Pinheiro observed a plastic bin, labeled "S. Meighoo," inside
the cell. Upon searching the bin, the officer discovered a razor blade, which had
been melted onto a pen and wrapped in a white cloth. Pinheiro then notified
Sergeant J. Reynolds who compiled the preliminary incident report.
On June 4, 2019, Meighoo was charged with committing prohibited act
*.202, possession or introduction of a weapon such as, but not limited to, a
sharpened instrument, knife, or unauthorized tool, in violation of N.J.A.C.
A-5072-18T3
2
10A:4-4.1(a).1 Sergeant O. Rodriguez served the charge on Meighoo and he was
placed in prehearing detention.
The NJDOC investigated the charge, found it had merit, and referred the
matter to a Departmental Hearing Officer (DHO) for further action. Meighoo
pleaded not guilty to the charge and provided written statements in which he
denied the weapon belonged to him. In his written statements, Meighoo
asserted, among other things, that his cellmate "was always making this kind of
stuff . . . ."
The hearing was initially scheduled for June 5, 2019, and the NJDOC
granted Meighoo's request for the assistance of counsel substitute. The hearing
was then rescheduled several times to consider Meighoo's requests for a
polygraph examination and a fingerprint analysis of the weapon. The
Administrator of NSP denied both requests, reasoning that the DHO could
adequately address any issues of credibility at the hearing.
Meighoo also requested video footage of his cell recorded between 5:45
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. the night before the weapon was found. Meighoo's counsel
substitute asserted that Meighoo suspected the weapon may have been "planted"
1
We note that "[p]rohibited acts preceded by an asterisk (*) are considered the
most serious and result in the most severe sanctions . . . ." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
4.1(a).
A-5072-18T3
3
in his cell during the time requested, while Meighoo was attending religious
services. The DHO denied the request for the video footage.
The hearing took place on June 13, 2019. Meighoo declined the
opportunity to call witnesses to testify on his behalf as well as the opportunity
to confront or cross-examine adverse witnesses. The DHO reviewed the staff's
reports, heard testimony by staff members, examined the bin where the
contraband was found, and considered Meighoo's statements. After reviewing
all of the evidence, the DHO found Meighoo guilty of the charge. The DHO
explained the decision by stating that Meighoo had offered no evidence to
support his allegations against his cellmate or counteract the staff reports.
The DHO imposed the following sanctions: 180 days in administrative
segregation, the loss of 181 days of commutation time, and the loss of 30 days
of recreational privileges. The DHO stated that the sanctions were warranted to
deter possession of weapons in prison. The DHO noted that the weapon found
in Meighoo's cell could have been used to cause serious injury.
On June 17, 2019, Meighoo filed an appeal with the administrator of NSP.
He asserted he was not guilty of the charge, and that he had been denied due
process because the NJDOC did not grant his requests for polygraph
examination, fingerprint analysis, and video footage.
A-5072-18T3
4
The Assistant Superintendent of NSP found that all procedural safeguards
had been followed and that there was substantial evidence to support the finding
of guilt. However, the Assistant Superintendent modified the sanctions based
on Meighoo's disciplinary history, reducing the time to be served in
administrative segregation from 180 to 91 days. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Meighoo argues the NJDOC violated his right to due process
by erroneously shifting the burden of proof to him and denying him evidence
needed for his defense. He further argues he was denied due process because
the NJDOC did not grant his requests for a polygraph examination, fingerprint
analysis, and video footage of his cell.
The scope of our review of a final decision of an administrative agency is
"severely limited." George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J.
8, 27 (1994) (citing Gloucester Cty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390 (1983)). We can "intervene only in those rare circumstances in
which an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with
other State policy." Ibid.
In an appeal from a final decision of the NJDOC in a prisoner disciplinary
matter, we consider whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support
the NJDOC's decision that the inmate committed the prohibited act. Blanchard
A-5072-18T3
5
v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 237-38 (App. Div. 2019) (citing
Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). We also must
consider whether, in making its decision, the NJDOC followed the departmental
regulations governing disciplinary matters, which were adopted to afford
inmates procedural due process. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-
95 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 220-22 (1995).
We are convinced there is sufficient evidence in the record to support the
NJDOC's decision that Meighoo was guilty of committing prohibited act *.202,
"possession or introduction of a weapon, such as, but not limited to, a sharpened
instrument, knife, or unauthorized tool." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(x). We are
also convinced the NJDOC followed its regulations in the disciplinary process.
Here, the record shows that during a search of Meighoo's cell, the officer
found a razor blade which had been melted on a pen and wrapped in a white
cloth and stored in Meighoo's bin. Although Meighoo asserted the weapon did
not belong to him, he submitted no evidence to substantiate that claim. The
evidence supports the NJDOC's conclusion that Meighoo had, in fact, committed
the prohibited act.
As noted, Meighoo contends he was denied due process because the
NJDOC shifted the burden of proof to him, while denying him evidence needed
A-5072-18T3
6
for his defense. He asserts the DHO failed to state that the NJDOC had carried
its burden of proof and did not specify the evidence relied upon for the decision.
The record does not support these contentions.
On the adjudication report, the DHO identified the evidence relied upon
in finding Meighoo committed the prohibited act. The DHO noted that the
evidence included the staff reports and testimony, as well as the examination of
the bin where the weapon was found.
The DHO noted that Meighoo presented no witnesses or evidence to
support his defense and did not seek confrontation or cross-examination of any
adverse witness. However, the DHO's adjudication report indicates that the
NJDOC had the burden of proof on the charge.
Meighoo also argues that he was denied due process because the NJDOC
did not grant his request for a polygraph examination. The administrative code
provides in pertinent part that:
(a) A polygraph examination may be requested by the
Administrator or designee:
1. When there are issues of credibility regarding serious
incidents or allegations which may result in a
disciplinary charge; or
2. As part of a reinvestigation of a disciplinary charge,
when the Administrator or designee is presented with
new evidence or finds serious issues of credibility.
A-5072-18T3
7
(b) The polygraph shall not be used in place of a
thorough investigation, but shall be used to assist an
investigation when appropriate.
(c) Agreement by the inmate to take a polygraph
examination shall not be a pre-condition for ordering a
reinvestigation. An inmate's request for a polygraph
examination shall not be sufficient cause for granting
the request.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:3-7.1.]
It is well established that an inmate in the State's correctional system does
not have an unqualified right to a polygraph examination. Ramirez v. Dept. of
Corrs., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23-24 (App. Div. 2005) (citing Johnson v. N.J. Dept.
of Corrs., 298 N.J. Super. 79, 83 (App. Div. 1997)). The NJDOC's regulation
"is designed to prevent the routine administration of polygraphs, and a
polygraph is clearly not required on every occasion that an inmate denies a
disciplinary charge against him." Ramirez, 382 N.J. Super. at 23-24.
The NJDOC's decision of whether to grant a polygraph is discretionary
and will not be reversed unless arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. Id. at 24.
The NJDOC should only grant the request "when there is a serious question of
credibility and the denial of the examination would compromise the fundamental
fairness of the disciplinary process." Id. at 20.
A-5072-18T3
8
Here, there was no serious issue of credibility warranting a polygraph
examination. The officer reported that he found a weapon in Meighoo's bin
during a random search of his cell. Meighoo claimed the weapon did not belong
to him, and he stated that the weapon belonged to his cellmate. However,
Meighoo presented no evidence to support his claim.
Meighoo's denial of guilt did not raise a serious issue of credibility. The
administrator reasonably determined the credibility of Meighoo's claim could be
addressed at the disciplinary hearing. We conclude the denial of the request did
not compromise the fundamental fairness of the proceeding.
Meighoo also contends he was denied due process because the NJDOC
did not grant his request for a fingerprint analysis of the weapon. Meighoo
acknowledges he does not have a right to such an analysis. In any event, a
fingerprint analysis would not have resolved an issue of credibility or clarified
any pertinent fact.
Even if Meighoo's fingerprints were not found on the weapon, this would
not necessarily warrant a finding that the weapon did not belong to him. As
noted, the weapon was found in Meighoo's bin during a search of his cell. We
are convinced that the denial of Meighoo's request for a fingerprint analysis of
A-5072-18T3
9
the weapon did not compromise the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary
proceeding.
In addition, Meighoo contends he was denied due process because the
NJDOC did not provide him with a videotape of his cell recorded between 5:45
p.m. and 8:30 p.m. on the evening before the weapon was found. However, the
sole basis for the request was Meighoo's suggestion that the weapon could have
been planted in his bin at that time when he was attending religious services.
The denial of the request was not arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, and it
did not adversely affect the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary proceeding.
Affirmed.
A-5072-18T3
10
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
