Juan Rojas v. New Jersey Department of Corrections ( 2024 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3326-22
JUAN ROJAS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted October 1, 2024 – Decided October 11, 2024
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Vanek.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Juan Rojas, appellant pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Juan Rojas (Rojas) appeals from the October 20, 2022 New Jersey
Department of Corrections (DOC) final decision upholding a hearing officer's
determination that while incarcerated he committed prohibited act *.306, barring
conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the
correctional facility. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(xix). We affirm the DOC
decision based on substantial credible evidence in the record.
I.
We glean the salient facts from the record before the DOC hearing officer.
On October 10, 2022, Officer C. Nardo reported that, while he was performing
a tour, Rojas stopped him at his cell and made verbal threats against another
officer. Specifically, Rojas informed Officer Nardo "about issues he was having
with [Officer] Sorrell." Rojas asserted "he wasn't going to do anything to get in
trouble, but can't control anybody else's actions." Rojas also stated "he had
people from other gangs approaching him[,] asking what was good with the
situation." Officer Nardo perceived Rojas's statements as a threat to Officer
Sorrell's life.
Rojas was then removed and taken to Prehearing Disciplinary Housing
(PHDH). Officers conducted a search of Rojas's cell and found no contraband.
A-3326-22
2
That same day, Rojas was charged with committing prohibited act *.005,
N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(ii). This prohibited act forbids the "threatening [of]
another with bodily harm or with any offense against his or her person or his or
her property." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(ii). On October 11, 2022, a
Corrections Sergeant served the *.005 charge on Rojas and conducted an
internal investigation before referring the charge to a hearing officer for further
action. After being served with the *.005 charge, Rojas waived his twenty-four-
hour notice and was granted the assistance of counsel substitute before pleading
"not guilty."
On October 13, 2022, a hearing was held before Disciplinary Hearing
Officer Nolley (the hearing officer). At the hearing, Rojas denied he was
attempting to cause trouble, and further denied any comments regarding
"gangs." Rojas further asserted he was merely "expressing his feelings about
the situation" with Officer Sorrell. Finally, Rojas argued there was no
substantial credible evidence to support the charge and he did not make any
verbal threats against Officer Sorrell.
During the hearing, Rojas declined the opportunity to call any witnesses
or to cross-examine adverse witnesses. At the conclusion of the hearing, the
hearing officer modified the charge from prohibited act *.005 to *.306. Once
A-3326-22
3
again, after being immediately served with the modified charge, Rojas waived
twenty-four-hour notice and was granted the assistance of counsel substitute
before pleading "not guilty" to the modified charge. After hearing the testimony,
reviewing all the evidence, and considering the arguments, the hearing officer
found Rojas guilty of charge *.306, conduct which disrupts. The hearing officer
relied on the following evidence: (1) Officer Nardo's disciplinary report; (2) the
special custody report; (3) Dr. David Kalal's medical evaluation of Rojas; (4)
the anatomical figure report; (5) Registered nurse Karen Fortune's medical
evaluation of Rojas; (6) Officer Nardo's second report; (7) the authorization for
prehearing disciplinary housing placement; and (8) the statements provided by
Rojas's counsel substitute.
In making the decision, the hearing officer referenced Rojas's testimony
that he expressed his feelings regarding how others perceived him due to an
injury he sustained to his leg when he fell down the stairs. In addition, the
hearing officer also considered his testimony regarding his reluctance for getting
in trouble, his lack of control over other gang members, and his concern for
potential issues within the facility. In upholding the charge, Rojas was
sanctioned to sixty-five days in the restorative housing unit, thirty-days loss of
A-3326-22
4
privileges (including tablet, kiosk, email, and jpay), and thirty-days loss of
phone privileges.
On October 13, 2023, Rojas administratively appealed the decision,
alleging the *.306 charge cannot be upheld because the *.005 charge was
dismissed. On October 20, 2022, Assistant Superintendent Berryman upheld the
guilty finding, and the recommended sanctions were imposed. In upholding the
decision, Assistant Superintendent Berryman concluded the DOC complied with
procedural safeguards in accordance with the New Jersey Administrative Code.
She further determined there was substantial credible evidence that "Rojas
caused a disruption in [Officer] Nardo['s] unit tour which is required to maintain
security and orderly running of the institution."
This appeal followed.
II.
We begin by circumscribing our standard of review. Our review of an
agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Malacow
v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457 N.J. Super. 87, 93 (App. Div. 2018). We presume the
validity of the "administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated
responsibilities." Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014). "The burden of
demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious[,] or
A-3326-22
5
unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the administrative action." In
re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 2006).
"We defer to an agency decision and do not reverse unless it is arbitrary,
capricious[,] or unreasonable or not supported by substantial credible evidence
in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App.
Div. 2010). A finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing must be "based upon
substantial evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act." N.J.A.C.
10A:4-9.15(a). Substantial credible evidence "means 'such evidence as a
reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa
v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re
Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). "The term has also been
defined as 'evidence furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency's action.'"
Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192 (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
347 N.J. Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002)).
III.
Rojas argues the DOC decision should be reversed because it was
unsupported by the record, arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable. Specifically,
Rojas argues there is a lack of credible evidence to support a finding that his
conversation with Officer Nardo disrupted or interfered with the orderly running
A-3326-22
6
of the correctional facility. 1 After thoroughly reviewing the issue, we affirm.
The DOC decision was based on substantial credible evidence in the
record before the hearing officer establishing Rojas was guilty of committing
prohibited act *.306, conduct which disrupts or interferes with the orderly
running of the correctional facility. After hearing Rojas's comments regarding
Officer Sorrell, Officer Nardo had no choice but to stop his routine tour of the
institution and take immediate action considering the nature of the comments.
While Rojas's comments did not explicitly threaten the health and safety of
Officer Sorrell, the statements could be interpreted in a way that implies Officer
Sorrell could be the target of violence due to "issues [Rojas] was having with
[Officer] Sorrell."
Considering Rojas's status as a maximum-security inmate, any potential
threats to the health and safety of correctional officers were properly approached
with a heightened sense of caution. Since Officer Nardo interpreted Rojas's
comments as a threat against Officer Sorrell, he therefore, was required to
implement heightened security measures to ensure the safety of others. These
1
Rojas also asserts in his notice of appeal that his due process rights were
violated during the evidentiary hearing. Since Rojas does not substantively
address the issue in his merits brief, we deem this issue abandoned. Sklodowsky
v. Lushis, 417 N.J. Super. 648, 657 (App. Div. 2011).
A-3326-22
7
heightened security measures required Officer Nardo to deviate from his tour to
escort Rojas to PHDH and conduct a thorough search of his cell for contraband.
Officer Nardo's routine tour was imperative in maintaining the security of the
correctional facility. The necessary deviations from Officer Nardo's routine tour
constituted a disruption in the orderly function of the correctional facility and
constitute substantial credible evidence upon which the administrative decision
relied.
Affirmed.
A-3326-22
8