RIGOBERTO MEJIA 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3583-16T3
RIGOBERTO MEJIA,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________________________
Submitted July 9, 2018 – Decided July 23, 2018
Before Judges Yannotti and Haas.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Rigoberto Mejia, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kai
W. Marshall-Otto, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Rigoberto Mejia is an inmate at New Jersey State Prison
(NJSP), where he is serving a life sentence, with forty years of
parole ineligibility, as a result of his convictions for murder,
robbery, and other offenses. Mejia appeals from a final
determination of the Assistant Superintendent of NJSP, finding him
guilty of committing prohibited acts *.102, attempting or planning
escape, and *.704, perpetrating frauds, deceptions, confidence
games, riots, or escape plots (frauds or deceptions) contrary to
N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.1 We affirm.
On January 31, 2017, prison officials received information
that Mejia was in possession of materials deemed to pose a threat
to the security of the institution. Investigators from the Special
Investigations Division (SID) conducted a search of Mejia's cell
and discovered a hand-drawn diagram of what appeared to be a cell
door complete with measurements. The SID investigator noted that
the drawing appeared to be of a cell door from units in the West
Compound, where Mejia was housed from January 2011 through February
2015.
The following day, the investigator attempted to question
Mejia about the drawing, but he indicated that he did not
understand the English language. The investigator reviewed Mejia's
past grievances and the interviews conducted regarding those
1
"Prohibited acts preceded by an asterisk (*) are considered the
most serious and result in the most severe sanctions." N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a).
2 A-3583-16T3
grievances, and determined that Mejia did, in fact, understand
English. The investigator determined that by misrepresenting his
ability to understand English, Mejia had attempted to circumvent
the investigation.
On February 1, 2017, the New Jersey Department of Corrections
(NJDOC) charged Mejia with prohibited act *.102, attempting or
planning escape. He was served with a copy of the charge the
following day. On February 2, 2017, the NJDOC also charged Mejia
with prohibited act *.704, perpetrating frauds or deceptions,
because he had misrepresented his ability to understand English.
On February 3, 2017, Mejia was served with a copy of the *.704
charge. Mejia pled not guilty to both charges.
A hearing first was scheduled for February 3, 2017. However,
the hearing was adjourned several times to obtain additional
information, translate a statement, consider Mejia's request for
a polygraph, allow Mejia an opportunity for confrontation, and
prepare a written report. The hearing concluded on February 23,
2017.
The hearing officer found Mejia guilty of committing
prohibited act *.102. The hearing officer noted that Mejia had
denied guilt, claiming he never planned an escape. The hearing
officer determined, however, that there was sufficient evidence
to support the charge. The hearing officer noted the serious nature
3 A-3583-16T3
of the charge, pointing out that the drawing found in Mejia's cell
included precise measurements of a cell door and posed a possible
threat to the security of NJSP if possessed by inmates.
The hearing officer also found Mejia guilty of committing
prohibited act *.704. The hearing officer noted that Mejia had
denied guilt and stated throughout the hearing that he does not
understand English. However, based on institutional reports, the
hearing officer found that Mejia had deliberately misrepresented
his ability to comprehend English during his interview with the
SID investigator.
For the *.102 charge, the hearing officer imposed the
following sanctions: 180 days of administrative segregation, the
loss of 365 days of commutation time, and the loss of thirty days
of recreational privileges. The hearing officer imposed the same
sanctions for the *.704 charge.
On February 26, 2017, Mejia filed an administrative appeal.
On March 9, 2017, David Richards, the Assistant Superintendent of
NJSP, issued a final decision, concluding that the proceedings had
been conducted in compliance with the applicable provisions of the
Administrative Code pertaining to inmate discipline, and there was
sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's decision. The
Assistant Superintendent rejected Mejia's request to suspend or
downgrade the sanctions. Mejia's appeal to this court followed.
4 A-3583-16T3
On appeal, Mejia argues that the hearing officer did not
conduct the proceeding in accordance with the Administrative Code
and violated his right to due process. His arguments are entirely
without merit.
Judicial review of final decisions of an administrative
agency is "severely limited." George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J.
Turnpike Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994) (citing Gloucester Cty.
Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390 (1983)).
The court can "intervene only in those rare circumstances in which
an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission
or with other State policy." Ibid.Where, as here, the court reviews a final decision of the
NJDOC in a prisoner disciplinary matter, we consider whether there
is substantial evidence in the record to support the NJDOC's
decision that the inmate committed the prohibited act and whether,
in making that decision, the NJDOC followed the regulations
governing the disciplinary process, which were adopted to afford
the inmates procedural due process. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J.
188, 194-95 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 220-22
(1995).
Mejia first argues that there is insufficient evidence to
support the hearing officer's finding that he committed prohibited
act *.102, attempting or planning escape. Mejia does not dispute
5 A-3583-16T3
that during a search of his cell, the SID investigators found a
hand—drawn diagram of what appeared to be a cell door, complete
with measurements. The drawing depicted the doors to cells in
units of the prison where Mejia previously had been housed. Mejia
provided a written explanation for his drawing. Among other things,
he claimed he made the drawing because of certain sexual fantasies.
The hearing officer rejected Mejia's explanation, finding
that the drawing could be used in an escape or attempted escape.
We note that in answering Mejia's confrontation questions, SID
Investigator Dalrymple stated that a drawing depicting the
measurements of a security door in a prison, especially one that
is a maximum-security institution, raises serious security
concerns. We conclude there is substantial evidence supporting the
*.102 charge.
Mejia also argues there was insufficient evidence to support
the hearing officer's finding that he committed prohibited act
*.704, perpetrating frauds or deceptions. Here, the NJDOC alleged
that Mejia refused to answer questions in the investigation,
claiming he did not understand English. The hearing officer
accepted the staff reports and determined that Mejia had
misrepresented his ability to understand English. We conclude
there is sufficient evidence to support the charge under *.704.
6 A-3583-16T3
Mejia further argues he was denied his right to confront
Dalrymple. The record shows that Mejia initially presented five
written questions for purposes of confrontation or cross-
examination of Dalrymple. The hearing officer disallowed three of
those questions.
The first of those questions was, "How long have you been
working for the [SID]?" The second question was, "During [the time
you have worked in the SID], how many cases, not counting this
one, [have] you worked [on] dealing with 'Attempt to escape OR
Planning an escape?" The third question was, "Is it true that all
cell doors are secured by a dead bolt lock and breaker bar which
can only be opened by [an] officer?" The hearing officer disallowed
these questions because they were "deemed irrelevant."
In a disciplinary hearing, an inmate has a limited right to
confront and cross-examine witnesses when "necessary for an
adequate presentation of the evidence, particularly when serious
issues of credibility are involved." McDonald, 139 N.J. at 198
(quoting Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 530 (1975)). However, the
Administrative Code expressly allows a hearing officer to disallow
any question that is irrelevant. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14(d)(2).
Here, the hearing officer properly exercised the authority
under the regulation. The questions sought information that was
not relevant to whether Mejia was guilty of committing the
7 A-3583-16T3
prohibited acts charged. The questions also had no bearing on any
credibility issue. The hearing officer's decision to disallow the
three questions was not a mistaken exercise of discretion.
Mejia also contends the hearing was not held within the time
required by N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(c). The regulation provides that
an inmate shall receive a hearing on a disciplinary charge within
three days after placement in "Prehearing Disciplinary Housing
[PDH]," including weekends and holidays, "unless there are
exceptional circumstances, unavoidable delays, or reasonable
postponements." Ibid.The record shows that Mejia was placed in PDH on February 1,
2018. The hearing was not held within three days thereafter.
However, the hearing was postponed to obtain additional
information, translate a statement, consider Mejia's request for
a polygraph, allow time for confrontation or cross-examination,
and prepare a report. The postponements were "reasonable."
Therefore, the hearing was held within the time permitted by
N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(c).
Affirmed.
8 A-3583-16T3