KASEEM ALI-X VS. 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4716-12T3
KASEEM ALI-X,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_______________________________
Submitted September 18, 2017 – Decided October 18, 2017
Before Judges Ostrer and Whipple.
On appeal from New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Kaseem Ali-X, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Kaseem Ali-X is an inmate serving a sentence of thirty-five
years to life for murder and other crimes. He is appealing the
Department of Corrections'(DOC) denial of his property claim for
a lost word processing disc and other items. We affirm.
Upon our review of the record, on January 13, 2012, Ali-X was
transferred from South Woods State Prison to East Jersey State
Prison. On August 22, 2012, Ali-X was transferred from East Jersey
State Prison to New Jersey State Prison. On September 4, 2012,
Ali-X signed an inmate inventory sheet and received his property,
including, among other things, twenty-one "diskettes." Inmate
inventory sheets dated August 23, 2012 and August 17, 2012, but
not signed by Ali-X, list twenty-six discs1 and twenty ribbons.
On March 6, 2013, Ali-X submitted an inmate claim form,
asserting he was missing a word processor disc, four erasers, and
eight inkpads. In support of his claim, he submitted a denial of
an Open Public Records Act request and two mailroom memos from
South Woods State Prison. After investigating, the DOC denied the
claim because Ali-X did not prove he ever possessed the items or
was authorized to have them. Moreover, the investigation revealed
no neglect on the part of DOC staff. Ali-X appealed.
On May 27, 2014, we dismissed Ali-X's appeal because he did
not exhaust his administrative remedies. On August 11, 2014, we
reinstated the appeal but ultimately remanded on November 5, 2014,
1
While we recognize that disks and discs are two distinct objects,
the record appears to use them interchangeably. For the purposes
of this opinion, we will utilize the spelling "disc."
2 A-4716-12T3
to permit the DOC to complete an administrative record. On March
31, 2015, Ali-X submitted a new property claim for a word processor
system disc, four inkers of ribbons, and four pencil erasers.
After an investigation, the DOC again denied the claim because
Ali-X did not prove he ever possessed the erasers or inkers when
he was transferred to the New Jersey State Prison. The
investigation revealed Ali-X had at least twenty-one discs when
he was transferred but whether any of those was a word processing
system disc was indeterminable. Moreover, when Ali-X was
incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison, his word processor had
been sent to an outside vendor for repairs and had been returned
to New Jersey State Prison. At some point, although unclear from
the record, the word processor was confiscated as contraband.
There was no evidence either facility was responsible for the loss
of the program disc because it could have been in the machine that
was shipped to the vendor for repairs. The DOC issued a final
decision denying Ali-X's claim, which we now consider.
On appeal, Ali-X argues:
POINT I.
IN ERROR OF LAW THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS HAS STOLEN THE APPELLANT'S CLAIMED
ITEMS.
POINT II.
IN ERROR OF LAW NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS HAS DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
3 A-4716-12T3
POINT III.
IN ERROR OF LAW THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS HAS UNLAWFULLY ABUSED ITS OFFICE.
We have considered Ali-X's arguments, in light of the record
and applicable legal standards, and find them to be without
sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We
add the following brief remarks.
The scope of our review in an appeal from a final agency
decision is limited. Decisions of administrative agencies will
not be reversed unless shown to be "arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable or . . . not supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison,
81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980) (citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil
Serv., 38 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)).
The DOC uses an inmate inventory sheet "to itemize all
personal property in the inmate's possession . . . upon transfer."
N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.6(a). Once an inmate properly files a claim for
lost, damaged, or destroyed personal property, the DOC must conduct
an investigation and prepare a report. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b).
The report shall consist of, but not be limited to, "obtaining
statements from the inmate, witnesses, and correctional facility
staff" and "verifying that the inmate was authorized to have and
did, in fact, possess the personal property." Ibid. "Verification
of possession of lost, damaged, or destroyed personal property may
4 A-4716-12T3
be made by review of applicable documentation, such as the IIS-1M
inmate inventory sheet maintained by the correctional facility"
pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11. Ibid. After completion of the
investigation, the inmate's claim form and a copy of the
investigative report must be submitted to the business manager of
the correctional facility for review. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(c).
Before the claim is approved or denied, the DOC considers
whether the investigation revealed any neglect by the correctional
facility; whether care was exercised by facility staff to prevent
property loss, damage, or destruction; whether the inmate
exercised care in preventing property loss, damage, or
destruction; and whether it has been proven that the inmate was
authorized to have and did, in fact, possess the items. N.J.A.C.
10A:2-6.2(a). The DOC also considers whether sufficient
information has been supplied by the inmate, including proper
receipts, witnesses, and investigative reports; whether the inmate
submitted the claim in a timely manner; whether the loss or damage
exceeds authorized amounts of correctional facility personal
property limits; whether the personal property is considered
contraband; and whether other reviewers recommended denial of the
claim and the reasons stated. Ibid. If a claim is denied, the
DOC must notify the inmate in writing and provide substantiating
reasons. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f).
5 A-4716-12T3
Here, the DOC followed the required procedures, using an
inmate inventory sheet to itemize all of Ali-X's personal property
on the day he was transferred to the New Jersey State Prison. The
DOC conducted an investigation after receiving Ali-X's claim,
considered the N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a) factors before denying it,
notified Ali-X in writing, and provided substantiating reasons.
We are satisfied there was substantial, credible evidence in the
record as a whole to support the DOC's reasons for denying Ali-
X's claim, and the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
While our review of the record does not explain discrepancies
between inventory lists and Ali-X's lost property claims, we cannot
determine, based on the record, that the DOC officials lost,
improperly confiscated, or stole his property or fraudulently
denied his claim. The discrepancies alone do not establish Ali-X
possessed the erasers or inkers for ribbons nor does it establish
whether the discs he received included the word processing disc.
Affirmed.
6 A-4716-12T3