ERIC HINES 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3259-18T3
ERIC HINES,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted February 24, 2020 – Decided March 24, 2020
Before Judges Fasciale and Mitterhoff.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Eric Hines, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Beonica McClanahan, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Eric Hines appeals from a March 1, 2019 final agency decision by the
New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request for a word
processor. Hines is an inmate, classified and housed in Level 1-AdSeg—the
most highly restricted housing unit—at South Woods State Prison. Pursuant to
DOC's policy, inmates in that level are not permitted to possess word processors.
We affirm.
On appeal, Hines argues:
POINT I
DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATORY ACTS
BEEN DISPLAYED SINCE 2016.
POINT II
FAILURE TO FOLLOW THEIR OWN RULES [AND]
REGULATIONS GOVERNING ADMINSTRATIVE
CLOSE SEGREGATION UNIT APP[R]OVAL FOR
LEVEL #ONE INMATES.
POINT III
DISCRIMINATION AGAINST INMATE IN
SIMILAR SITUATION.
POINT IV
FAILURE TO PROVIDE EQUAL PROTECTION OF
THE LAW.
POINT V
BREACH OF DUTY.
A-3259-18T3
2
Although we conclude that these contentions are without sufficient merit to
warrant attention in a written opinion, Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E), we add
these brief remarks.
Our standard of review is settled. We defer to administrative agencies in
recognition of their "expertise and superior knowledge of a particular field." In
re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 28 (2007). In our review of DOC's exercise of
authority, we must acknowledge "[t]he breadth and importance of the
Commissioner's expertise and discretionary authority in matters of prison
policy, regulation and administration[.]" Ortiz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 406 N.J.
Super. 63, 70 (App. Div. 2009).
N.J.A.C. 10A:5-3.8 and N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.2 address whether an inmate
may possess specific property items. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-3.8, entitled "[p]ersonal
items," states:
(a) A Director, Division of Operations or designee
shall, in accordance with the Administrative
Segregation Level Program, develop a written list of
authorized personal property items and the amounts of
personal property items authorized for retention by
inmates while confined in an Administrative Close
Supervision Unit.
(b) All inmates admitted to an Administrative Close
Supervision Unit shall be permitted to retain only those
personal property items and amounts of personal
property as are set forth on the list of authorized,
A-3259-18T3
3
permissible items for inmates in an Administrative
Close Supervision Unit developed under (a) above.
(c) Unauthorized, non-permissible personal property
shall be handled in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.
N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.2(b), entitled "[p]ermissible personal property," requires
"[t]he listing and any regulations concerning inmate personal property shall be
published in each correctional facility Inmate Handbook." South Woods
complied with these regulations. The Inmate Handbook identifies personal
property items permitted for inmates in Level 1-AdSeg—a classification for
inmates found guilty of serious disciplinary infractions and whose possessions,
activities, and amenities are the most highly restricted—and a word processor is
not listed.
Affirmed.
A-3259-18T3
4