LARRY FLEMING 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1164-18T4
LARRY FLEMING,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted November 4, 2019 – Decided November 13, 2019
Before Judges Sabatino and Geiger.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Larry Fleming, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Stephanie Renee Dugger, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Larry Fleming, an inmate at Trenton State Prison, appeals a final agency
decision of the Department of Corrections denying his claim to be paid $27.88
for the cost of a banned magazine the prison confiscated. We affirm.
The record shows the magazine was ordered and paid for by another
individual, with instructions to deliver it to Fleming at the prison. In the
meantime, the magazine was added to the prison's running list of banned
publications. The prison intercepted the package and returned the magazine to
the seller.
Fleming then filed a claim to be paid for the cost of the magazine pursuant
to N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(5). The prison committee that handles such property
claims unanimously denied the claim. Two of the members noted on the
handwritten form that Fleming failed to supply a receipt for the magazine.
Fleming tried to tender one after the ruling, but it was denied as too late. The
PayPal receipt does not show payment by Fleming but instead by another person.
The inmate property claim regulations, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2, list as a
pertinent factor in item 5 "whether sufficient information has been supplied by
the inmate, including proper receipts, witnesses, and investigative reports."
Here the receipt was tendered too late.
A-1164-18T4
2
The Department has "broad discretionary powers" to promulgate
regulations concerning activities inside correctional facilities. Jenkins v.
Fauver, 108 N.J. 239, 252 (1987). On appeal, our courts generally will not
disturb the Department's administrative decisions unless the inmate
demonstrates that the decision is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that
the record lacks substantial, credible evidence to support that decision. Henry
v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of
Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010).
Applying our limited scope of review and the deference owed to the
Department, we affirm its determination. The decision to reject appellant's
property damage claim was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. It was
not obligated to reconsider its decision based on the inmate's late submission.
Moreover, the evidential value of the receipt is undermined by appellant's
inmate trust account statement for the pertinent time frame, which reflects no
payment out of his account in the sum of $27.88.
Affirmed.
A-1164-18T4
3