STATE OF NEW JERSEY VS. RASHAWN BOND(10-03-0288, UNION COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2371-14T2
OBADIAH NEELY,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
_______________________________
Submitted April 3, 2017 – Decided April 12, 2017
Before Judges Sabatino and Currier.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Obadiah Neely, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
PER CURIAM
Obadiah Neely, a State prisoner, appeals the December 30,
2014 final agency decision of the Department of Corrections (the
"Department") upholding the confiscation of certain items from his
prison cell. For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
The record reflects that a search of appellant's cell on
August 20, 2014 revealed several items, including what are referred
to as "ice chips" and nearly 600 postage stamps. The prison staff
confiscated the items as improper gambling paraphernalia. In
addition, the number of postage stamps possessed by appellant far
exceeded the forty maximum stamps allowed under the prison's rules
and regulations.
The Department charged appellant with disciplinary
infractions under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1. Specifically, defendant was
charged with prohibited acts .603 (possession of gambling
paraphernalia) and .709 (failure to comply with a written prison
rule or regulation). The charges were expanded to include
prohibited act .207 (possession of money or currency exceeding $50
without authorization). Appellant pled guilty to the disciplinary
charges, as modified, and the hearing officer imposed sanctions.
He administratively appealed the sanctions imposed using leniency,
and that appeal was denied on September 17, 2014.1
Thereafter, appellant requested the return of the ice chips
and the postage stamps. In the Department's final agency decision,
1 Appellant did not appeal the disciplinary sanctions to this
court.
2 A-2371-14T2
the Associate Administrator declined to return the ice chips,
since several of them had the names of other inmates on them and
appeared to be gambling gains. The Associate Administrator also
rejected appellant's request to return the stamps to him because
they likewise appeared to be gambling gains. However, the
Associate Administrator did direct that forty stamps, i.e. the
maximum allowed under the prison's rules and regulations, be
returned to appellant.
In his brief, appellant contends that the Department's
confiscation of the items and the refusal to return them to him
was unauthorized, arbitrary, and capricious. We disagree.
It is well established that the Department has "broad
discretionary powers" to promulgate regulations aimed at
maintaining security and order inside correctional facilities.
Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239, 252 (1987). We have also
recognized that "[p]risons are dangerous places, and the courts
must afford appropriate deference and flexibility to
administrators trying to manage this volatile environment." Russo
v. N.J. Dept. of Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 576, 584 (App. Div. 1999).
Among other things, the Department has the authority to
disallow gambling within the prisons. Moreover, the Department
has the discretion to require confiscation of contraband as a
sanction for a proven or admitted disciplinary violation. N.J.A.C.
3 A-2371-14T2
10A:4-5.1(g)(6). That discretionary authority nullifies the
option to have confiscated items sent to an inmate's family members
or friends under N.J.A.C. 10A:3-6.3(b).
We discern no abuse of discretion, nor any arbitrary or
capricious action, by the Department in this confiscation matter,
particularly since appellant acknowledged his violation of prison
regulations. His arguments lack sufficient merit to warrant any
further discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
4 A-2371-14T2