NAFIS KEDAR 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4045-18T1
NAFIS KEDAR,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted June 4, 2020 – Decided June 18, 2020
Before Judges Alvarez and Suter.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Nafis Kedar, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Shuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Kimberly Gail Williams,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Nafis Kedar, an inmate at Northern State Prison, appeals from an April
11, 2019 Department of Corrections (DOC) final administrative decision
adjudicating him guilty of prohibited act *.252, encouraging others to riot;
*.306, conduct disrupting or interfering with the security or orderly running of
the correctional facility; and *.256, refusing to obey an order of any staff
member, all in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm, concluding that
Kedar's arguments on appeal are so lacking in merit as to not warrant discussion
in a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Kedar was present, along with others, when an inmate assaulted an officer
on April 8, 2019. That officer called out for everyone to lie down on the floor.
Kedar, along with at least one other inmate, remained on his feet, yelling.
The incident was captured on film, and reviewed the following day by two other
prison officers. Kedar was served with disciplinary charges the following day.
He was assigned counsel substitute.
"A finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial
evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
9.15(a). "Substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs.,
414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas
A-4045-18T1
2
Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). Such evidence must furnish a reasonable basis
for the agency's action. Ibid. (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347
N.J. Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002)).
Furthermore, an inmate is not entitled to the full panoply of rights in a
disciplinary proceeding ordinarily extended to a defendant in a criminal
prosecution. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Prisoners are entitled
to written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing;
an impartial tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary
evidence; a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a
right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and reasons for the
sanctions imposed; and, where the charges are complex, the assistance of a
counsel substitute. Id. at 525-33; accord Jacobs v. Stevens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995);
McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995).
We do not address the merits of Kedar's first two points of error because
they simply express his disagreement with the conclusion the hearing officer
and the prison administrator reached after reviewing the evidence. That
evidence included a video. Kedar was afforded the opportunity to refute the
evidence; whatever the reason, he chose not to do so. Thus, the finding of guilt,
A-4045-18T1
3
given the unrefuted report of the officer present and the video of the incident
was based upon substantial evidence.
Kedar's third point is that sanctions he received involved "more time" than
the sanctions imposed on others involved in the incident. As to that claim,
nothing in the record supports this new ground for appeal.
Affirmed.
A-4045-18T1
4