RAYMOND MOORE VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 limit ed. R. 1:36-3.
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0918-18T4
RAYMOND MOORE,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted October 21, 2019 – Decided November 4, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino and Sumners.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Raymond Moore, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Raymond Moore, a prisoner at Bayside State Prison, appeals an
October 5, 2018 final agency decision of the Department of Corrections
imposing disciplinary sanctions upon him for committing prohibited act *.203
(the possession or introduction of any prohibited substance such as drugs,
intoxicants or related paraphernalia not prescribed for the inmate or medical or
dental staff). We affirm.
The record shows that on September 20, 2018, a Bayside corrections
officer conducted a routine search of the bed area assigned to Moore. During
the course of the search, the officer opened Moore's footlocker and discovered
a tablet of suspected contraband contained within a folded piece of brown paper
inside a rolled-up pair of socks. The tablet was field tested and shown to be
Suboxone, a prohibited opioid. Moore does not assert he was authorized to
possess Suboxone.
Moore was accordingly charged with a violation of *.203. After several
postponements, a disciplinary hearing was conducted, at which Moore had the
assistance of a counsel substitute and pled not guilty. He declined the
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.
After considering the proofs, the disciplinary hearing officer found Moore
guilty of the *.203 charge. Moore was sanctioned to 120 days of administrative
A-0918-18T4
2
segregation, 120 days loss of commutation time, 15 days loss of recreation
privileges, 365 days of urine monitoring, and permanent loss of contact visits.
Moore administratively appealed the hearing officer's determination. On
October 5, 2018, an Assistant Superintendent upheld the guilty finding and the
sanctions.
The core issue Moore raises on appeal is that he was allegedly deprived
of due process because the Department was unable to produce a video that
Moore alleges would show that his locker did not have a lock attached to it . He
claims such a video would have shown his locker could have been accessible to
other inmates, who might have stuffed the non-permitted drug there. Moore
argues the Department unconstitutionally and arbitrarily failed to fulfill his
request to have the video obtained and presented at the hearing.
The Department asserts that it undertook a search for the video. However,
its Special Investigations Division discovered that the relevant portion of the
video was unplayable. The Department also points out that an inmate inventory
sheet reflected that Moore owned a lock on the date in question.
The governing law and our scope of review in this prisoner disciplinary
matter is clear. It is well established that our courts generally will not disturb
the Department's administrative decision to impose disciplinary sanctions upon
A-0918-18T4
3
an inmate, unless the inmate demonstrates that the decision is arbitrary,
capricious or unreasonable, or that the record lacks substantial, credible
evidence to support that decision. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571,
579-80 (1980); Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App.
Div. 2010).
Prisoners in disciplinary matters are afforded only limited procedural
protections. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 193-99 (1995). Those limited
protections are less than the full spectrum of rights afforded to criminal
defendants. See generally Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974);
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Those limited procedural
protections, which are enumerated in Wolff and Avant, including such things as
notice; an impartial tribunal; a timely hearing with a chance for the inmate to
obtain the aid of a layperson counsel substitute; a reasonable opportunity to
present evidence, to call witnesses, and to cross-examine opposing witnesses;
and a reasoned decision supported by substantial credible evidence. Wolff, 418
U.S. at 563-71; Avant, 67 N.J. at 525-32.
The record manifestly reflects all of these minimal protections were
afforded to Moore in this case. By all indications, the Department made a
diligent effort to obtain and review the video recording that Moore requested.
A-0918-18T4
4
Unfortunately, the relevant portion of the video was unplayable. There is no
proof the Department deliberately mishandled or damaged the video.
It is sheer speculation the video would contradict the Department's proofs
of culpability, including the searching officer's account of his examination of
Moore's locker and its contents. Further, Moore cites no authority requiring the
Department to maintain continuous and evidentially useful video recordings of
all activities within the prison walls.
There is ample credible evidence in the record to support the Department's
determination. No constitutional deviation occurred.
Apart from what we have already stated, all other arguments Moore raises
on appeal lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E).
Affirmed.
A-0918-18T4
5