WALTER TORMASI v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1024-20
WALTER TORMASI,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted December 8, 2021 – Decided January 26, 2022
Before Judges Hoffman, Whipple and Susswein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Walter Tormasi, appellant pro se.
Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, Walter Tormasi, a State Prison inmate, appeals from an agency
decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) that purports to
deny his request to file a patent infringement lawsuit against a computer
company that he alleges has infringed upon his patent. Pursuant to N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a)(3)(xviii)—referred to as the "no business rule"—State Prison
inmates must receive permission from the prison administrator to file a lawsuit
for damages. After carefully reviewing the record in light of the governing legal
principles, we are constrained to remand for the DOC to clarify whether it
approved or denied Tormasi's request, and if denied, to provide a statement of
reasons to permit meaningful appellate review.
We briefly recount the facts and procedural history pertinent to the issues
raised on appeal. Tormasi has been confined in State Prison since 1996, when
he was sixteen years old. While in prison, he completed numerous paralegal
courses and read over 1000 books on technology, mathematics, and other
subjects. He also invented an improvement "to the actuator mechanism upon
which hard disk drives depend." In January 2008, he was issued a patent by the
United States Patent and Trademark Office. During that time period, he
persistently violated the "no business" rule by engaging in corporate and
business activities without permission.
A-1024-20
2
In February 2019, plaintiff sued Western Digital Corp. (WDC) for patent
infringement. In April 2019, WDC filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's suit for
lack of standing and capacity to sue. On November 21, 2019, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted WDC's motion to
dismiss. Tormasi v. W. Digit. Corp., No. 19-cv-00772-HSG, 2019 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 202536 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2019). The District Court found that
plaintiff lacked capacity to sue but did not reach the issue of standing. Id. at
*5–8. The District Court reasoned that "because New Jersey law prevents
inmates from 'commencing or operating a business or group for profit or
commencing or operating a nonprofit enterprise without the approval of the
Administrator,' [p]laintiff lacks capacity to bring this patent infringement suit."
Id. at *5.
On August 20, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit affirmed the District Court order dismissing Tormasi's complaint.
Tormasi v. W. Digit. Corp., 825 F. App'x 783, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Court
of Appeals reasoned that "Tormasi's attempt to file this lawsuit as a personal
action merely repackages his previous business objectives as personal activities
so he may sidestep the 'no business' regulation. Because these actions are a mere
continuation of his prior business activities, we find that here, as in . . . Tormasi's
A-1024-20
3
previous lawsuit, [his] characterization of his suit as personal, as opposed to
related to business, to be without merit." Id. at 787.
On September 30, 2020, Tormasi submitted a request to the New Jersey
State Prison Administrator seeking approval to sue for patent infringement. On
October 9, 2020, the Administrator responded with the following decision:
This office is in receipt of your correspondence
requesting Administrative approval to file and litigate
your lawsuits regarding your alleged patent-
infringement.
To the extent that your activity does not run afoul of
[N.J.A.C.] 10A:4-4.1 (.705) and the decisions in
Tormasi v. Hayman, 443 Fed. Appx. 742, as well as
other applicable laws and authorities in this area, you
have all applicable legal access rights afforded New
Jersey State Inmates.
You are encouraged to make use [] of the Law Library
and/ or the ILA for any legal issues or questions.
Tormasi interpreted the decision as a denial of his request. On October
14, 2020, he appealed the Administrator's decision via the electronic grievance
system. The administration responded: "Your concerns are noted, but the
department disagrees with your characterization." On October 21, 2020,
Tormasi again challenged the decision via the electronic grievance system. The
administration responded: "The response is appropriate. This is the final
determination of the Administration."
A-1024-20
4
Tormasi raises the following issues for our consideration:
POINT I
THE DEPARTMENT OVERSTEPPED ITS BOUNDS
IN REFUSING TO APPROVE TORMASI'S
LAWSUITS FOR FILING/LITIGATION.
A. LEGAL STANDARDS GOVERNING DOC
RULING
B. ALLOWANCE OF INTELLECTUAL-PROPERTY
THEFT
C. INJURY TO U.S. PATENT SYSTEM AND ITS
BENEFICIARIES
D. INCONSISTENCY WITH PRIOR DOC RULING
E. VIOLATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
AND REGULATIONS
We begin our analysis by acknowledging certain basic principles
governing this appeal. Although final agency actions are subject to appellate
review, R. 2:2-3(a)(2), the scope of that review is limited. A final agency action
will be reversed only if it is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not
supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v.
Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980) (citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil
Serv., 39 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)). In applying this highly deferential standard,
courts inquire into "whether the decision conforms with relevant law, whether
A-1024-20
5
there is substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole to support the
agency's decision, and whether in applying the relevant law to the facts, the
agency clearly erred in reaching its conclusion." In re State & Sch. Emps.'
Health Benefits Comm'ns' Implementation of Yucht, 233 N.J. 267, 280 (2018).
In order to give the challenged final agency action this deference,
however, the record must be sufficiently developed to permit meaningful
review. Ibid. If the record is not sufficiently developed to permit meaningful
review, the court may remand for supplementation of the record. R. 2:5-5(b).
Importantly, the agency is required to make findings of fact and give a
statement of reasons.
[D]eference does not require that we forego a careful
review of administrative decisions simply because an
agency has exercised its expertise. We cannot accept
without question an agency's conclusory statements,
even when they represent an exercise in agency
expertise. The agency is "obliged . . . 'to tell us why.'"'
[Balagun v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 361 N.J. Super. 199,
202–03 (App. Div. 2003) (quoting In re Valley Hosp.,
240 N.J. Super. 301, 306 (App. Div. 1990))].
In this instance, the Administrator's initial response was so cryptic that we
cannot even be sure whether it constitutes an acceptance or denial of Tormasi's
request. The replies to Tormasi's two administrative appeals via the electronic
A-1024-20
6
grievance system shed no light on the situation and reveal little more than the
administration's irritation with Tormasi's persistence.
If the agency decision was to deny Tormasi's request, that conclusion is
not supported by any findings of fact. Indeed, no reasons are given either with
respect to the initial response or the two electronic replies to Tormasi's grievance
system appeals. In short, if the agency decision is meant to be a denial, the
agency did not "tell us why." Balagun, 361 N.J. Super. at 202–03 (quoting In re
Valley Hosp., 240 N.J. Super. at 306). Accordingly, we remand the matter to
DOC for a clearer decision and statement of reasons. See In re Vey, 124 N.J.
534, 544 (1991) ("When the absence of particular findings hinders or detracts
from effective appellate review, the court may remand the matter to the agency
for a clearer statement of findings and later reconsideration."); see also Mainland
Manor Nursing & Rehab. Center v. N.J. Dep't of Health & Sr. Servs., 403 N.J.
Super. 562, 571 (App. Div. 2008) ("[A]n administrative agency must conduct an
independent evaluation of all relevant evidence and legal arguments presented
in support of and in opposition to proposed administrative agency action . . . .
[F]ailure to do so may make the agency's decision arbitrary and capricious and
require a remand for reconsideration.") (citation omitted).
A-1024-20
7
We direct DOC to issue a clarified final decision within forty-five days of
this decision. We offer no opinion on whether permission to file a patent
infringement action in federal court should be granted. If the final agency
decision is to deny Tormasi's request for permission to file a patent infringement
suit, that decision shall include a statement of findings of fact and law that are
sufficiently detailed to permit meaningful appellate review. We therefore
remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Remanded. We retain jurisdiction.
A-1024-20
8