LUIS A. TORRES VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3329-19
LUIS A. TORRES,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted October 25, 2021 – Decided November 8, 2021
Before Judges Sabatino and Mayer.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Luis A. Torres, appellant pro se.
Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General,
of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Luis A. Torres, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, appeals
from a February 6, 2020 final agency decision issued by respondent New Jersey
Department of Corrections (DOC) affirming his removal from a prison work
assignment. We affirm.
Between February 8, 2017 and August 28, 2019, Torres held a five-day
work week assignment as a clerk in the prison's Commissary. On August 27,
2019, the Institutional Classification Committee ("ICC") reassigned Torres from
his assignment in the Commissary to a job in the Building Sanitation Unit.
Torres was reassigned at the request of Lieutenant Herb Eigenrauch after Torres
was involved in stealing items from the Commissary.
Torres questioned his removal from the Commissary job and filed an
inmate grievance seeking reinstatement to that job post. The prison
administrator advised Torres that he was removed from his Commissary duties
because he was "caught stealing and out of place." The administrator warned
Torres he would face disciplinary charges rather than just a job reassignment for
future transgressions of the prison's rules.
In October 2019, Torres appealed the administrator's decision. In his
appeal, Torres claimed the job reassignment was retaliatory and unjustified
because he did not receive a formal disciplinary charge.
A-3329-19
2
On February 6, 2020, the prison administrator upheld the initial decision
because Torres was stealing items from the Commissary. The administrator
noted that issuance of a formal disciplinary infraction was not required because
Lieutenant Eigenrauch referred Torres to the ICC for a new job.
On appeal, Torres argues the DOC's change in his work assignment was
arbitrary, capricious, and retaliatory and therefore violated his First Amendment
rights. We disagree.
Our review of an agency determination is limited. In re Stallworth, 208
N.J. 182, 194 (2011). We will not reverse an administrative agency's decision
unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [] not supported by
substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Ibid. (omission in
original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)).
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)).
Further, inmates do not possess a liberty or property interest in a job
assignment. Lorusso v. Pinchak, 305 N.J. Super. 117, 119 (App. Div. 1997).
(citing James v. Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627, 629 (3d Cir. 1989)). "[I]nmates entering
A-3329-19
3
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, reasonable assumptions of inmates cannot always be equated with
constitutionally-protected liberty interests." Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239,
253 (1987).
Here, Torres claimed the reassignment was unrelated to the stealing
accusation. He contends the reassignment was based on his questioning a prison
officer's authority. However, Torres has no constitutionally enforceable right to
a particular work assignment. Work assignments are within the DOC's sound
discretion. The decision to reassign Torres to a different position did not deprive
him of a fundamental liberty or property interest. In fact, the job reassignment
was a less severe punishment than the possible sanctions that could have been
imposed had Torres been charged with a disciplinary infraction for stealing.
We next consider Torres' argument that his job change violated his First
Amendment rights because it was retaliatory. The incident giving rise to Torres'
retaliation claim was not presented as part of his filed grievance. Moreover,
there is nothing in the record supporting this allegation.
A-3329-19
4
Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the decision to reassign
Torres did not deprive him of any fundamental liberty or property interest.
Under the circumstances, the DOC's final decision was not arbitrary, capricious,
or unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-3329-19
5