KASEEM ALI-X VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) (CONSOLIDATED) ( 2021 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0968-19
A-2067-19
KASEEM ALI-X, a/k/a
JESSIE TUCKER,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted April 14, 2021 – Decided May 26, 2021
Before Judges Whipple and Rose.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Kaseem Ali-X, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Tasha M. Bradt, Deputy Attorney
General, and Nicholas Falcone, Deputy Attorney
General, on the briefs).
PER CURIAM
In these back-to-back cases, Kaseem Ali-X appeals from two decisions of
the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) affirming determinations a
disciplinary hearing officer rendered on September 16, 2019, and July 16, 2019,
adjudicating Ali-X guilty of committing prohibited act .709, failure to comply
with a written rule or regulation of the correctional facility, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.
We affirm.
I.
Ali-X is an inmate at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) serving a sentence
of thirty-five years to life for murder and other crimes. We discern the following
from A-2067-19. In March 2019, Ali-X submitted an inquiry via the JPay
Inmate Remedy System asking prison staff to replace his damaged toilet brush.
On April 9, 2019, Ali-X submitted a grievance via JPay regarding the toilet
brush. One week later, Security Major Craig Sears responded to Ali-X that the
matter "should be handled directly with the housing officer. Area supervisor
advised, next supplies delivery your unit will get a new brush." On April 25,
2019, Ali-X appealed the April 9 grievance and submitted another grievance
about the toilet brush. There he wrote that his complaint should have been
resolved immediately once it occurred. On April 28, Ali-X submitted another
A-0968-19
2
grievance about the toilet brush asking whether prison policy required unit
officers to remove and report broken equipment from the housing units; Major
Sears responded it did not. On May 7, Ali-X submitted another grievance calling
for a new policy to be established regarding maintenance equipment used by
inmates.
On May 12, Major Sears advised Ali-X that submitting multiple remedies
on the same subject is a violation of the rules and regulations and is subject to
disciplinary action. Ali-X appealed his May 7 grievance. A DOC employee,
Michael Crawford responded, advising Ali-X "the officers on your unit are
aware of how to obtain new equipment and what to do with any broken
equipment."
Three days later, Major Sears again advised Ali-X: "This is at least the
third time I've read an inquiry from you regarding this subject. It has been
answered. You will receive disciplinary charges if you continue." Major Sears
advised Ali-X of the NJSP policy in abuse of the Inmate Remedy System again
on June 3. Undeterred, on June 14, Ali-X submitted another grievance about the
toilet brush.
On June 17, another DOC employee, Mitchell Magpiong, reviewed Ali-
X's grievance of June 14, and noted that Ali-X had "submitted [seven] previous
A-0968-19
3
JPay remed[ies] regarding the same issue." Magpiong completed a disciplinary
report, chronicling how Ali-X's repeated submissions violated the policy against
abusing the Inmate Remedy System, and that Major Sears had advised Ali-X of
that policy multiple times and "informed him that multiple requests submitted
regarding the same subject are prohibited and are subject to disciplinary action."
Ali-X was charged with prohibited act .709, failure to comply with a written rule
or regulation of the correctional facility. Magpiong completed the disciplinary
report on June 17, and Ali-X received notice of the disciplinary charge the next
day. Ali-X did not make a statement as part of the investigation. Sergeant Bezek
reported that Ali-X was uncooperative during his investigation.
Ali-X ultimately confirmed that he understood the charge against him and
requested the assistance of a counsel substitute, which the DOC granted. The
DOC held the disciplinary hearing on June 21, 2019. Ali-X was offered the
opportunity to call witnesses, and confront and cross-examine witnesses, but he
declined to do so. Ali-X pleaded not guilty to the .709 charge. At the hearing,
Ali-X said in his statement regarding his June 14, 2019 grievance: "I filed a
complaint that a broken toilet brush was still being used after being told it was
going to be replaced." His counsel substitute added that "[t]he grievances were
staggered over [a three-month] period. I can't say they really constitute abuse
A-0968-19
4
of [the] JPay system. Some entries are duplicated." The hearing officer found
Ali-X guilty of failure to comply with a written rule or regulation of the
correctional facility. The hearing officer found that Ali-X submitted seven JPay
inquiries or grievances about the same issue, despite being informed three
different times that abuse or misuse of the JPay system will result in disciplinary
action. The hearing officer also noted that, while Ali-X pleaded not guilty, he
provided no evidence to discredit staff reports or other evidence. The hearing
officer relied on the JPay grievances and inquiries that Ali-X submitted to
support the charges as written.
The hearing officer imposed thirty days' loss of JPay and fifteen days' loss
of recreation privileges. The Classification Department authorized those
sanctions. The hearing officer granted Ali-X leniency in imposing sanctions,
given that his last charge was in 2012. But the hearing officer also noted that
Ali-X was advised three different times about abuse of the JPay system and
continued to submit grievances anyway. Ali-X appealed the finding of guilt on
June 25, 2019. The DOC upheld the hearing officer's decision on July 16, 2019.
This appeal followed.
A-0968-19
5
II.
The record of the second appeal, A-0968-19, reveals that on September
11, 2019, Magpiong was reviewing JPay Inmate Remedy submissions, and
noticed Ali-X submitted four JPay remedy request forms not regarding his
previous complaint, but to receive a copy of unit appeal form 256-I. He issued
Ali-X charges for .709, failure to comply with a written rule or regulation of the
correctional facility. Sergeant M. Edwards served the disciplinary charge on
Ali-X, investigated, and referred the charge to a hearing officer for further
action.
The disciplinary hearing was held on September 16, 2019. Ali-X pleaded
not guilty to the charge against him and requested the assistance of counsel
substitute, which was granted. He and his counsel substitute were also granted
the opportunity to make a statement on his behalf. Ali-X maintained he was
attempting to receive a copy of form 256-I. Ali-X was permitted the opportunity
to request written statements and confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses,
but he declined.
After considering all the testimony presented and evidence proffered, the
hearing officer found Ali-X guilty of .709. The hearing officer found Ali-X
submitted four JPay inquiries regarding the same issue. Moreover, exhibit A4
A-0968-19
6
reflected that the "form 256-I was left in Ali-X's cell by" a courtline officer, and
Ali-X did not discredit the evidence.
Ali-X was sanctioned with thirty days' administrative segregation, thirty
days' loss of commutation time, and thirty days' loss of JPay email privileges.
In imposing the sanctions, the hearing officer reasoned that Ali-X "must follow
directions [and] responses [received] via JPay." The hearing officer explicated
"if he feels his answer was not handled, he should speak [with] the social worker
[and/or] a paralegal." The hearing officer also emphasized she "addressed [Ali-
X's] concern about unit appeal forms [by] requesting carbon copy forms to be
put [in the] unit."
Ali-X administratively appealed the decision of the hearing officer,
arguing his "filings were secondary to staff violation." Assistant Superintendent
Amy Emrich upheld the decision and the sanctions imposed by the hearing
officer on September 16, 2019. This appeal followed.
On appeal in A-2067-19 and A-0968-19, Ali-X argues:
THE FINAL DECISION OF THE [DOC] MUST BE
REVERSED BECAUSE ALI-X WAS DEPRIVED OF
PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS TO WHICH HE IS
ENTITLED (Not Raised Below).
In his reply brief in A-2067-19, Ali-X argues:
A-0968-19
7
DOC'S FINAL DECISION OF GUILTY IS IN
VIOLATION OF LAW.
In his reply brief in A-0968-19, Ali-X also argues:
DOC'S ARBITRARY DECISION IS NOT
SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE.
We have considered Ali-X's arguments in light of the record and
applicable legal standards and find them to be without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We add the following brief remarks.
Our review of final administrative agency decisions is limited. Malacow
v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457 N.J. Super. 87, 93 (App. Div. 2018). An
administrative agency's decision will not be reversed 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). "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of
Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec.
& Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).
The Inmate Handbook specifically states:
Inmates who abuse or misuse the Inmate Remedy
System may be subject to disciplinary action.
Examples of abuse include, but are not limited to:
A-0968-19
8
Multiple requests submitted regarding the same subject.
Follow-up requests submitted prior to the expiration of
the established response time frames.
Requests that are, by tone or language, abusive or
offensive in nature.
Destruction, misuse of, or tampering with forms.
Ali-X submitted seven inquiries on the issue of the toilet brush despite
having received responses. Ali-X also submitted four JPay remedy requests
regarding the form 256-I.
Ali-X further asserts he was denied due process. Although inmates are
not entitled to the same due process protections as criminal defendants, they are
guaranteed certain limited protections. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188,
194 (1995); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 523 (1975). Here, Ali-X was given
written notice of the charge at least twenty-four hours before the hearing, he was
provided with counsel substitute, he was offered an opportunity to call and
confront witnesses, and he received a written statement of the evidence relied
upon and the reasons for the discipline. We find nothing in the record to suggest
that this determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-0968-19
9