BERNARD REID 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0910-19
BERNARD REID,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________
Submitted March 23, 2021 – Decided April 15, 2021
Before Judges Yannotti and Natali.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Bernard Reid, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Marvin L. Freeman, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Bernard Reid is incarcerated at the New Jersey State Prison in
Trenton. He appeals from a July 30, 2019 final determination of the Department
of Corrections (DOC) maintaining his continued placement in the prison's
Management Control Unit (MCU). We affirm.
The MCU is "a close custody unit to which an inmate may be assigned if
the inmate poses a substantial threat to the safety of others; of damage to or
destruction of property; or of interrupting the operation of a State correctional
facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-1.3; see also N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.5(a). "MCU
confinement for inmates is not imposed as punishment but is used to prevent a
potentially dangerous situation within the prison." Taylor v. Beyer, 265 N.J.
Super. 345, 346-47 (App. Div. 1993).
DOC regulations detail the criteria to be considered in placing an inmate
in MCU. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.4. Inmates assigned to the MCU are reviewed by
the Management Control Unit Review Committee (MCURC) for continued
placement in the MCU on a 90-day basis. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.6(a). An inmate
can be released from the MCU when the inmate no longer poses "an identifiable
threat . . . [t]o the safety of others"; "[o]f damage to, or destruction of property";
or "[o]f interrupting the secure and/or orderly operation of a State correctional
facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.6(i)(2).
A-0910-19
2
On June 25, 2019, the MCURC conducted the standard quarterly review
of appellant's placement in the MCU as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.3.
Appellant was notified of the hearing but refused to attend.
The MCURC considered the documentary evidence and found appellant's
continued placement in the MCU necessary because of his "continued refusal to
attend [his] hearing reviews, and the lack of participation in available
programs." The MCURC also based its decision on appellant's extensive and
serious disciplinary history consisting of "259 disciplinary charges," including
"132 charges preceded by an asterisk".1 Those charges included:
[A]ssault, assault with a weapon, threatening with
bodily harm, possession of a weapon, . . . setting a fire,
encouraging others to riot, engaging or encouraging a
group demonstration, fighting, refusing to obey,
abusive or obscene language toward staff, indecent
exposure, and throwing bodily fluids, refusing to
submit to a search[,] and conduct which disrupts.
The DOC upheld the MCURC's decision in a July 30, 2019 final agency
decision. The DOC determined that the MCURC complied with N.J.A.C.
10A:5-2.6, the decision was based on substantial credible evidence in the record,
1
Asterisk charges are "considered the most serious and result in the most severe
sanctions." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.
A-0910-19
3
and appellant's continued placement in the MCU was appropriate and necessary
based on the facts of the case.
Before us, appellant argues that he should be released from the MCU
because: 1) his continued placement violates the New Jersey Law Against
Discrimination, N.J.S.A. 10:5-1 to -49; 2) the MCURC incorrectly failed to
conclude that DOC officials "willfully and knowingly violated the law" and
refused to discipline them as required by N.J.S.A. 52:13D-23(d) and N.J.S.A.
52:13D-26; and 3) the DOC's decision was arbitrary and capricious as it failed
to consider all relevant evidence and reached its decision in violation of his due
process rights. We reject appellant's arguments and conclude they are of
insufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E). We add the following comments to amplify our decision.
We will not interfere with an agency's final decision unless it 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). The Legislature has provided the Commissioner of the DOC with "broad
discretionary power" in matters involving the administration of a prison facility.
Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 576, 583 (App. Div. 1999).
Classification and transfer of State prisoners is placed within the sole discretion
A-0910-19
4
of the Commissioner of the DOC. N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.1 to -91.3; see also Smith
v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 29-30 (App. Div. 2001).
We reject appellant's claim that the DOC violated his rights under the
LAD as factually and legally incognizable. In this regard, appellant fails to cite
to any specific provision of the LAD, or provide any factual support to explain how
the DOC or the MCURC violated the LAD in either its initial or subsequent
decisions that he should be placed and remain in the MCU.
We also conclude that neither the DOC, nor any of its officials, "violated
the law" in deciding that appellant's conduct warranted continued placement in
the MCU as there was substantial, credible evidence in the record to support that
determination. As noted, appellant has a significant disciplinary history
including 259 disciplinary charges, 132 of which are serious asterisk offenses.
These charges include assault with a weapon, setting a fire, and instigating a riot.
He also failed to attend previous hearings and participate in available programs.
Finally, we find without merit appellant's claims that the DOC failed to
provide him due process before rendering its decision. Ample "process" was
afforded appellant through the DOC's regulations, which accorded him notice, the
opportunity to receive legal assistance, the opportunity to be heard, and the ability
to appeal the MCURC's decision. See N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.6(b), -(c), -(i); N.J.A.C.
A-0910-19
5
10A:5-2.7. The MCURC and the DOC abided by these regulations, provided
appellant with notice of the hearing, which he declined to attend, and considered all
relevant evidence before it. The DOC's final agency decision was not unreasonable
as it was consistent with the applicable statutory and regulatory authority and
supported by substantial evidence in the record.
Affirmed.
A-0910-19
6