LIONELL MILLER VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSÂ (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5038-13T3
LIONELL MILLER,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
________________________________________
Submitted August 1, 2017 – Decided November 30, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino and O'Connor.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Lionell Miller, 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
Appellant Lionell Miller, presently an inmate at East
Jersey State Prison, claims while incarcerated at New Jersey
State Prison (NJSP), his word processor and television were
damaged by the correctional facility's staff. Following its
investigation, respondent Department of Corrections (DOC)
determined there was no evidence the staff was responsible for
the alleged damage, and denied Miller's claim the DOC pay the
cost to replace both items.
Miller filed a notice of appeal challenging the denial of
his claim pertaining to the word processor. Although he
indicated in his merits brief he was also appealing from the
denial of his separate claim the DOC reimburse him the cost of
his television, Miller never filed a notice or amended notice of
appeal challenging such denial.1 Accordingly, we decline to
consider this discrete claim. As for the claim concerning the
damaged word processor, we reverse and remand for further
proceedings.
I
A
We first address Miller's claim the staff damaged his word
processor. In November 2013, Miller obtained permission from
the staff to mail his word processor to the vendor to be
1
We address the procedural history, which is somewhat atypical,
in more detail below.
2
A-5038-13T3
repaired. Although the word processor worked, there was a
problem with the keyboard, which caused the keys to "freeze up"
on occasion. There also was a small incision in the input cord.
On February 27, 2014, Miller gave Corrections Officer
Watson the unpackaged word processor so it could be mailed from
the facility's mail room. The word processor was later packaged
for delivery in the mail room. Although outgoing mail is to be
sent to the post office within one day of being received in the
mail room, excluding weekends, holidays, and during emergency
incidents, see N.J.A.C. 10A:18-5.6(b), Miller's word processor
was not mailed out for two weeks.
On March 25, 2014, Miller received a letter from the
vendor's employee informing him the word processor was badly
damaged when the employee opened the package at the vendor's
location, and could not be repaired. The employee opined the
word processor had been "severely" damaged during shipping, but
did not elaborate upon why he believed the damage occurred
during shipping.
But the employee made the additional observation,
suggesting the manner in which the word processor was packaged
caused the loss. He stated, "When we opened the box, the
monitor was basically sitting on top of the keyboard. This
resulted in the damage of about a dozen of the keys on the
3
A-5038-13T3
keyboard as well as the breaking of the clear plastic cover."
The vendor provided pictures of the damaged keyboard, keys, and
plastic cover.
Miller submitted a claim to the DOC for damaging his word
processor, requesting compensation of $595, the cost of this
item when he purchased it new in 2009. In his claim, Miller
referenced the vendor's letter and alleged the facility's staff
had damaged the word processor before it was mailed to the
vendor.
As part of the DOC's investigation, a Sergeant Patterson
interviewed Miller and a "property room officer" named Watson.2
Watson told Patterson the word processor was shipped out for
repair on February 21, 2014 and returned, unrepaired, in April.
Sergeant Smith authored a memo in which he merely stated in
conclusory fashion, "This Word Processor was not damaged in the
property area."
On May 20, 2014, Lieutenant Gerdes, an administrative
lieutenant of the NJSP, issued a "Disposition of Inmate Claim,"
in which he denied Miller's claim for damage to his word
processor. Gerdes' only comments were, "The investigation did
2
The record does not reveal the first names of several of the
DOC staff members. We intend no disrespect by referring to them
by just their last names.
4
A-5038-13T3
not reveal any neglect by the Correctional Facility. The item
was not damaged in the property area."
On July 1, 2014, Miller appealed from this determination.
After filing his merits brief, the DOC filed a motion to remand
this matter because the NJSP's business manager and
administrator had not reviewed Miller's claim before it was
denied, as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(d) and (e). We
granted the motion and, in our remand order, directed the DOC to
fully comply with N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a) and make specific
findings as to (1) whether the investigation revealed any
neglect by the facility staff, and (2) whether the staff
exercised care to prevent property loss, damage, or destruction.
Thereafter, the business manager and administrator reviewed
and rejected Miller's claim. The business manager's findings
consisted of the following statement: "Based on [the] claim form
submitted by Inmate Miller and reports written, no evidence has
been submitted to substantiate the claim that the word processor
was damaged by DOC staff."
On September 16, 2015, the administrator of the NJSP issued
a final agency decision, which consisted solely of the following
statement. "It is impossible to determine if the damage
occurred after the [word processor] was mailed from NJSP. It is
possible that the package was mishandled by the mail carrier."
5
A-5038-13T3
B
As for the claim pertaining to his television, Miller
contends, while in detention and administrative segregation for
a period in 2014, the staff removed his television set from his
cell and intentionally damaged it. He contends he submitted a
claim to the DOC for $181.17, the cost to replace the
television. On August 8, 2014, his claim was denied. Miller
did not file an amended notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 2:5-1
challenging this denial, merely addressing such claim in his
merits brief. The DOC filed a motion to again remand this
matter, asserting Miller never filed a claim for loss to the
television, but, for the sake of "judicial economy," requested a
remand to investigate the claim so it could issue a final agency
decision.
On January 13, 2016, we granted this motion. In our order
we stated, among other things, that if the DOC ruled adversely
to Miller on his claim concerning the alleged damage to his
television, he had forty-five days to file an amended notice of
appeal to include the separate final agency decisions as to both
the television and the word processor.
On July 21, 2016, the NJSP's administrator "disapproved"
Miller's claim on the ground he had not submitted any claim for
the alleged damage. Miller did not file an amended notice of
6
A-5038-13T3
appeal to include the denial of the claim pertaining to the
television.
II
On appeal, Miller contends the DOC failed to properly
investigate his claims, as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1. and
10A:2-6.2 and, therefore, the DOC's determinations his claims
lacked merit were arbitrary and capricious.
We readily dispose of Miller's claim pertaining to the
television. Rule 2:4-1(b) requires an appeal from "final
decisions or actions of state administrative agencies or
officers . . . shall be taken within 45 days from the date of
service of the decision or notice of the action taken." Miller
never appealed from and, thus, we have no jurisdiction to review
the denial of this particular claim. Sikes v. Twp. of Rockaway,
269 N.J. Super. 463, 465-66 (App. Div.), aff'd o.b., 138 N.J. 41
(1994).
We now turn to Miller's contention the DOC failed to
properly investigate his claim the staff caused damage to his
word processor, rendering the DOC's rejection of this claim
arbitrary and capricious.
We recognize our role on review is limited. Our function
is to determine whether the administrative action under review
was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. See Henry v. Rahway
7
A-5038-13T3
State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980). We will only decide
whether the findings could reasonably have been reached on the
credible evidence in the record, considering the proofs as a
whole. See Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965).
Nevertheless, our review is not "perfunctory," nor is "our
function . . . merely [to] rubberstamp an agency's decision[.]"
Figueroa v. New Jersey Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 191
(App. Div. 2010). "[R]ather, our function is 'to engage in a
careful and principled consideration of the agency record and
findings.'" Ibid. (citation omitted).
To enable us to exercise this function, the agency must
provide a reasonable record and statement of its findings.
Blyther v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 322 N.J. Super. 56, 63 (App.
Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 196 (1999). "[W]e insist that
the agency disclose its reasons for any decision, even those
based upon expertise, so that a proper, searching, and careful
review by this court may be undertaken." Balagun v. N.J. Dep't
of Corr., 361 N.J. Super. 199, 203 (App. Div. 2003).
Turning to the regulations that govern the outcome here,
N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b)(1) provides that when an inmate at a
correctional facility claims damage to his personal property,
there must be an investigation that includes, but is not limited
to, obtaining statements from the inmate, witnesses, and
8
A-5038-13T3
correctional facility staff. Further, a report of the
investigation must be prepared. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b).
Thereafter, the business manager of the correctional
facility must review the investigative report and recommend,
with substantiating reasons, either the approval or denial of
the claim. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(c) and (d). Following the
issuance of the business manager's recommendation, the
administrator of the correctional facility reviews the matter,
see N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(e). If a claim is denied, the
administrator must provide substantiating reasons, see N.J.A.C.
10A:2-6.1(f). Several factors must "be considered before
recommending [the] approval or disapproval of claims." N.J.A.C.
10A:2-6.2(a). These factors include whether the investigation
revealed neglect by the correctional facility, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-
6.2(a)(1), and whether care was exercised by facility staff to
prevent the loss, damage or destruction to the property,
N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(2).
Here, the administrator does not provide substantiating
reasons for denying the claim pertaining to the word processor.
He merely states in conclusory manner that it is "impossible" to
determine if the damage occurred after the word processor was
mailed from NJSP, and that it is possible the package was
mishandled by the mail carrier, but provided no analyses of how
9
A-5038-13T3
he arrived at these two conclusions. To be sure, the NJSP is
not claiming the word processor was damaged to the extent
observed by the vendor when still in Miller's possession or that
the vendor caused the damage. Thus, the opportunity for the
word processor to have become damaged was limited to when the
word processor was in the NJSP's possession or during its
shipment.
Notwithstanding the limited opportunities for the word
processor to have become damaged, the administrator fails to
address the unrefuted evidence that the correctional facility
staff packaged the word processor and placed the monitor on top
of the keyboard before sealing and sending the package for
shipment. The packaging of the word processor calls into
question whether the keyboard sustained damage as a result of
the weight of the monitor. There is no indication those who
conducted the investigation inquired into why the staff packaged
the word processing in such manner and whether the way this item
was placed in the box for shipment caused the damage. There is
also no indication the DOC looked into how the word processor
was packaged to protect it during shipment.
Those who participated in the investigation merely provided
perfunctory, conclusory statements that yielded no significant
information. The administrator knew or should have known the
10
A-5038-13T3
investigation failed to provide him with sufficient evidence to
draw any meaningful conclusions. In short, the DOC failed to
comply with the relevant requirements in N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 and
6.2, not to mention our remand order directing the DOC make
specific findings as to (1) whether the investigation revealed
any neglect by the facility staff, and (2) whether the staff
exercised care to prevent property loss, damage, or destruction.
Because DOC's decision is not based upon credible evidence
in the record, it is arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.
Accordingly, we reverse the May 20, 2014 final agency decision
denying Miller his claim for compensation for the damage caused
to his word processor, and remand this matter to the DOC to
engage in an investigation and fact-finding mandated by the
applicable regulations.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent
with this opinion. The remand shall be completed no later than
January 16, 2018. If Miller is aggrieved by the outcome of the
remand, he must file any new appeal within forty-five days of
the final agency decision. We do not retain jurisdiction.
11
A-5038-13T3