ADAM NARDUCCI 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5599-17T2
ADAM NARDUCCI,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_____________________________
Submitted September 17, 2019 – Decided September 26, 2019
Before Judges Hoffman and Currier.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Adam Narducci, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Inmate Adam Narducci appeals from the final agency decision of the
Department of Corrections (DOC) that he committed prohibited act *.204 (use
of a prohibited substance). We affirm.
We discern the following facts from the record. Narducci is currently
serving a prison term of five years, with a mandatory-minimum of four years,
two months and thirty days, for robbery. While at the DOC Central Reception
and Assignment Facility, after transferring from the Essex County Jail,
Narducci requested a transfer to the Mid-State Correctional Facility (Mid-
State). On June 11, 2018, the DOC transferred Narducci to Mid-State. Upon
arrival, Narducci was given an on-site drug test as part of the intake process
for newly arrived inmates. Narducci's initial urine specimen tested positive for
marijuana (THC). The specimen was sent to the DOC Laboratory for
confirmatory testing.
On June 14, 2018, the DOC Laboratory confirmed the positive test for
marijuana. As a result, the DOC charged Narducci with violating prohibited
act *.204. The charge was referred to a disciplinary hearing officer for further
action. The hearing officer postponed Narducci's June 15, 2018 hearing in
order to obtain the original lab results. The hearing occurred on June 19, 2018.
Narducci pled not guilty and prepared his case with the help of a counsel
A-5599-17T2
2
substitute. At the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer found
Narducci guilty of prohibited act *.204, sanctioning him to ninety-one days
administrative segregation, ninety-one days loss of commutation credit, ninety-
one days urine monitoring, fifteen days loss of recreation privileges, and
permanent loss of contact visits. After the hearing, Narducci filed an
administrative appeal with the DOC.
On administrative appeal, Narducci argued he admitted to smoking
marijuana almost daily, and for that reason, specifically requested assignment
to Mid-State so that he could get the drug treatment he needs; however, he
denied using any prohibited substances since leaving the Essex County Jail.
The Mid-State Assistant Superintendent upheld the hearing officer's decision
based on the record before him. This appeal followed.
Narducci presents two arguments on this appeal. First, he argues the
DOC's finding of guilt to infraction *.204 was arbitrary, capricious, and
unreasonable. Second, he argues he was denied due process and a fair hearing.
Prison disciplinary hearings are not criminal prosecutions, and "thus the
full panoply of rights due a defendant in such a proceeding does not apply."
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975) (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408
U.S. 471, 480 (1972)). Prisoners receive limited due process protections.
A-5599-17T2
3
Ibid. The protections extended to prisoners include written notice of the
charges, a minimum of twenty-four hours prior to the hearing, an impartial
tribunal to consider the charges, a limited right to call witnesses, assistance of
counsel substitute, and a right to a written statement of evidence relied upon
and the reasons for the sanctions imposed. Avant, 67 N.J. at 525-33.
The scope of appellate review of an administrative agency's final
decision is limited. In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27 (2007). Decisions by an
agency will be upheld, unless the decision 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, 579-80
(1980). Our review is limited to whether the agency's findings could
reasonably have been reached based on substantial evidence in the record. In
re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). See also Avant, 67 N.J. at 530 (noting the
substantial evidence standard applied to guilty findings in DOC appeals).
"Substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion." In re Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J.
Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956).
Narducci received notice of infraction *.204 more than twenty-four
hours before his hearing. Before the hearing, the DOC offered Narducci the
A-5599-17T2
4
opportunity to present witnesses and documentary evidence; he presented
none. At the hearing, Narducci declined to cross-examine adverse witnesses
and provided only his own statement as evidence. We conclude Narducci
received all the protections afforded to prisoners subjected to disciplinary
proceedings, including an assistance of counsel substitute, consistent with
Avant.
We also conclude the record contains substantial credible evidence that
supports the finding that Narducci violated N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)'s prohibited
act *.204 by smoking marijuana while incarcerated. The evidence before the
DOC consisted of the positive urine specimen and Narducci's statement.
Narducci's claim that his positive test resulted from marijuana he used at the
Essex County jail, before his assignment to Mid-State, was not arbitrarily
rejected by the hearing officer as Narducci provided no evidence to support his
assertion against the positive urine specimen.
Because we are satisfied that the facts in the record support the DOC's
determination that Narducci was guilty of prohibited act *.204 and that
Narducci received the level of due process required by Avant, we affirm the
decision on appeal.
Affirmed.
A-5599-17T2
5