MAURICE GOODEN 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0983-19
MAURICE GOODEN,
a/k/a MAURICE GOODING,
and MARK THOMAS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted March 10, 2021 – Decided April 8, 2021
Before Judges Geiger and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Maurice Gooden, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Maurice Gooden, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appeals
from the October 1, 2019 final determination of the Department of Corrections
(DOC) upholding a hearing officer's finding that he committed prohibited acts:
*.002, assaulting any person; *.005, threatening another with bodily harm or
with any offense against his or her person or property; and *.306, conduct which
disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional
facility; in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm.
On August 27, 2019, Gooden was housed in Cell No. 6 of Housing Unit
2B Right at New Jersey State Prison. At around 9:45 a.m. that day, Disciplinary
Hearing Officer T. Cortes was conducting an adjudicatory hearing in Cell No. 4
of Housing Unit 2B Right. Also present were Officer B. Sides and inmate
paralegal Robert Hill. As they entered the Unit, Gooden began yelling
threatening statements at Hill, including, "I will fuck you up when I get out of
here, you bitch ass n—ger!" Gooden also called Hill a "stool pigeon."
Gooden continued making threatening statements to Hill throughout the
hearing. The threatening statements were apparently related to a prior incident
in which Hill provided a witness statement concerning a disciplinary infraction
for which Gooden was sanctioned. As a result of his conduct, Gooden was
charged with committing prohibited act *.005.
A-0983-19
2
Following that incident, Gooden was escorted to the medical unit for
evaluation. Upon returning to his cell, Officer Christmas ordered Gooden to
remove his shoelaces prior to placing him in pre-hearing detention. After
removing the first shoelace, Gooden used it to whip Christmas across the left
side of his face. Gooden then removed his other shoe and raised it in an
aggressive manner. As a result of the assault, Lieutenant Peterson called a code
33–officer needs assistance emergency. This required numerous officers to
leave their assigned posts to assist and delayed lunch mess movement for
approximately thirty minutes. Gooden was charged with committing prohibited
acts *.002 and *306.
On August 28, 2019, a corrections sergeant served the charges on Gooden,
investigated the charges, and referred the charges to a hearing officer. On the
same day, a mental health evaluation of Gooden was performed to determine his
mental status and level of responsibility. The evaluator found that Gooden
suffered from a mental illness but concluded the mental illness did not contribute
to his behavior during the alleged infraction and that Gooden was responsible
for his actions. The evaluator also concluded that Gooden was mentally
competent to defend himself and understand the disciplinary proceeding.
A-0983-19
3
The hearing took place on September 17, 2019. Gooden requested and
was granted the assistance of a counsel substitute and pleaded not guilty to the
charges.
Gooden requested witness statements relating to the *.005 and *.306
charges from inmates A. Harris, J. Roman, and Hill. The investigating sergeant
obtained statements from Harris and Roman, but Hill refused to provide a
statement. The statements were considered by Disciplinary Hearing Officer
Falvey. Gooden also requested and was granted confrontation of Hearing
Officer Cortes, Lieutenant Peterson, and Officers Christmas and Sides.
After hearing the testimony, reviewing the evidence, and considering
Gooden's arguments, Disciplinary Hearing Officer Falvey found Gooden guilty
of all three charges. On the *.005 charge, Gooden was sanctioned to 180 days
of administrative segregation, loss of 180 days of commutation time, and loss of
email privileges for 30 days. The hearing officer found Gooden had a prior
disciplinary history involving numerous threatening charges, that prior
sanctions did not have a deterrent effect, and that Gooden's threat against an
inmate paralegal showed a callous disregard for safety and security. The hearing
officer also considered Gooden's mental health status.
A-0983-19
4
On the *.002 charge, Gooden was sanctioned to 300 days of administrative
segregation, loss of 300 days of commutation time, and loss of recreation
privileges for 30 days, to run consecutively to the sanctions imposed for the
*.005 charge. The hearing officer found Gooden "has [a] prior disciplinary
history highlighted by recent threats and has now escalated to assault on staff.
Prior sanctions ineffective. Gooden continues to exhibit conscious disregard for
safety of officers." Gooden's mental health status was noted. The hearing
officer stated the sanctions were "intended to deter this conduct."
On the *.306 charge, Gooden was sanctioned to a concurrent 180 days of
administrative segregation, and a consecutive loss of 180 days of commutation
time. The hearing officer found "Gooden ha[d] an extremely poor disciplinary
history. Full of disruption and violence. Sanctions intended to deter [inmate]
from further disruption and keep in setting where he can be controlled."
Gooden's mental health status was noted.
Gooden administratively appealed the hearing officer's decision. (Ra87-
91). On October 1, 2019, Assistant Superintendent Amy Emrich upheld the
guilty findings and the sanctions imposed. Emrich determined that the
proceeding satisfied the procedural safeguards set forth in the inmate discipline
regulations of the New Jersey Administrative Code. She found that the
A-0983-19
5
preponderance of the evidence presented supported the hearing officer's decision
that Gooden was guilty of the three charges. Emrich noted that Gooden's
"mental health history was reviewed and considered." This appeal followed.
Gooden raises the following points for our consideration:
I. THE HEARING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE
RECUSED HERSELF BECAUSE SHE WAS A
WITNESS TO THE *.005 CHARGE, WHICH
CREATED A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
II. APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO CONFRONTATION
WAS VIOLATED BY NOT ALLOWING
APPELLANT TO CONFRONT [OFFICER]
MCLEAN.
III. THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION WAS
NOT BASED UPON SUBSTANTIAL CREDIBLE
EVIDENCE.
IV. APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR A POLYGRAPH
SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't
of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). Reversal is appropriate
only when the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or
unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Henry v.
Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); see also In re Taylor, 158 N.J.
644, 657 (1999) (holding that a court must uphold an agency's findings, even if
it would have reached a different result, so long as "sufficient credible evidence
A-0983-19
6
in the record supports the agency's conclusions").
"[A]lthough the determination of an administrative agency is entitled to
deference, our appellate obligation requires more than a perfunctory review."
Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 191 (quoting Blackwell v. Dep't of Corr., 348 N.J.
Super. 117, 123 (App. Div. 2002)). We engage in a "careful and principled
consideration of the agency record and findings" relating to inmate disciplinary
adjudications. Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 204 (App. Div.
2000) (quoting Mayflower Sec. Co. v. Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973)).
In a disciplinary proceeding, an inmate is not entitled to "the full panoply
of rights" afforded a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Avant v. Clifford, 67
N.J. 496, 522 (1975) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 494 (1972)).
An inmate is entitled to written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours
prior to the hearing; an impartial tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and
present documentary evidence; a limited right to confront and cross-examine
adverse witnesses; a right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and
the reasons for the sanctions imposed; and, where the charges are complex, the
inmate is permitted the assistance of a counsel substitute. Id. at 525-33.
The record reveals that each of these procedural requirements were met.
Gooden received timely notice of the charges. He was afforded the assistance
A-0983-19
7
of counsel substitute pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.12. Gooden submitted
written statements denying the charges and requesting a polygraph. His counsel
substitute argued on his behalf. Written statements of two witnesses were
provided; the third refused to provide a statement. Gooden was granted
confrontation of Hearing Officer Cortes, Lieutenant Peterson, and Officers
Christmas and Sides, in form of written questions to be answered by the witness
at the hearing in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14. He also had the
opportunity to ask follow-up questions. The hearing was conducted by Hearing
Officer John Falvey, a member of the DOC's Central Office, thereby providing
an impartial tribunal. Accordingly, Gooden received due process.
Gooden contends that Hearing Officer Cortes should have recused herself
because she was a witness to the *.005 charge. Gooden is clearly mistaken.
Hearing Officer Falvey adjudicated the charges, not Cortes. There was no
conflict of interest.
Gooden also contends that his request for confrontation of Officer
McLean was improperly denied. The record demonstrates that none of the
officers involved in the incidents was named "McLean."
Gooden further contends that his polygraph request should have been
granted. An inmate does not have the right to a polygraph test. Johnson v. N.J.
A-0983-19
8
Dep't of Corr., 298 N.J. Super. 79, 83 (App. Div. 1997) (citing N.J.A.C. 10A:3-
7.1(c) ("An inmate's request for a polygraph examination shall not be sufficient
cause for granting the request.")). Instead, N.J.A.C. 10A:3-7.1 "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 v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23-24 (App. Div. 2005).
"[A] prison administrator's determination not to give a prisoner a polygraph
examination is discretionary and may be reversed only when that determination
is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable.'" Id. at 24. "[A]n inmate's right to a
polygraph is conditional and the request should be granted 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.
However, "fundamental fairness will not be effected when there is sufficient
corroborating evidence presented to negate any serious question of credibility."
Id. at 24.
Because adequate corroborating evidence was presented to confirm the
officers' credibility, Gooden "has failed to demonstrate that the denial of his
request for a polygraph negated the fundamental fairness of the disciplinary
proceeding which would compel the granting of his request for a polygraph."
A-0983-19
9
Id. at 26. The officers' reports of the incidents were consistent and supported
the findings that Gooden threatened Hill and assaulted Officer Christmas. While
Gooden's witnesses claimed they did not hear him threaten Hill, the two
witnesses that heard the threat, Hearing Officer Cortes and Officer Sides, were
in closer proximity to Gooden than his two witnesses. Moreover, Gooden
admitted that he had previously called Hill a "stool pigeon." We are satisfied
the Assistant Superintendent did not abuse his discretion by denying the request
for a polygraph test.
We next consider whether there was adequate evidence to find Gooden
guilty of committing prohibited acts *.002, *.005, and *.306. "A finding of guilt
at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial evidence that the inmate
has committed a prohibited act." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). "Substantial
evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion." Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192 (quoting In re Pub.
Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). In other words, it is "evidence
furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency's action." Ibid. (quoting McGowan
v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J. Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002)).
Our careful review of the record convinces us there was substantial
evidence to find Gooden guilty of committing prohibited acts *.002, *.005, and
A-0983-19
10
*.306. Accordingly, the DOC's final determination was not arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-0983-19
11