FRANK PADRO VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2019 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4377-17T2
FRANK PADRO,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
___________________________
Submitted September 25, 2019 – Decided October 2, 2019
Before Judges Fuentes and Enright.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Frank Padro, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Frank Padro, a State inmate, appeals from the Department of
Corrections (DOC) finding that he was guilty of prohibited act * .205, misuse of
authorized medication, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Padro contends
the DOC's decision and the sanctions imposed violated his due process rights.
We affirm the adjudication of guilt.
On the morning of July 12, 2017, Padro was leaving the prison medical
clinic following a physical therapy session. Before Padro exited the clinic, a
corrections officer searched him and found a crumpled piece of paper in his
hand. The officer directed Padro to open up the paper, which revealed a crushed
pill consisting of white powder. Padro maintained the powdery substance was
prescribed pain medication which he intended to take following his physical
therapy session. The substance was confiscated and even though medical staff
were asked to identify it, they could not. Therefore, the substance was sent to
the State Police Laboratory for testing and it was later determined to be codeine.
Padro was given an on-site drug test on the morning of the incident and he tested
negative for narcotics.
The following day, Padro was charged with committing prohibited acts
*.203, possession or introduction of any prohibited substances, and .210,
possession of anything not authorized for retention or receipt by an inmate or
A-4377-17T2
2
not issued to him through regular correctional facility channels. The
disciplinary hearing commenced in July 2017, and at Padro's request,
confrontation hearings involving two officers were held, but the final hearing
was postponed pending receipt of the test results from the State Police
Laboratory. Padro requested, but was denied, confrontation with a particular
nurse, Nurse Pettorini, as it was determined Nurse Pettorini did not witness the
incident. Moreover, Padro requested, but was denied, confrontation with Nurse
Francois, who he claimed, distributed his medication to him on the morning of
the incident. Padro does not claim Nurse Francois witnessed the incident.
At the final hearing on March 27, 2018, the hearing officer amended
Padro's charges to a *.205 charge: (1) based upon confirmation that he was
prescribed medication that is crushed; (2) that such medication would cause a
positive reading on a urine test; and (3) that the medical staff provided the
medication on the morning of the incident before he attended the clinic.
Padro pleaded not guilty to the amended charge. During the adjudication
hearing, he provided a statement, acknowledging the powdery substance found
on him by a corrections officer was his medication and that he intended to take
it once his physical therapy session ended.
A-4377-17T2
3
After considering the testimony and the test results from the State Police
Laboratory confirming the narcotic seized was codeine, the hearing officer
found Padro guilty of the *.205 charge. The hearing officer concluded Padro
did not take his narcotic medication when it was dispensed to him. Medication
dispensed on the unit is to be taken when dispensed. Padro violated this protocol
when he saved his medication for a later time. The hearing officer noted Padro
had the opportunity to take his medication in the clinic
but chose not to. If his intent was to take it after
physical therapy, Padro offers no explanation as to why
he didn't just leave it in his cell and take the medication
upon his return to his unit or before reporting to work.
The hearing officer observed that the Regional Nurse Manager had
confirmed the medication Padro is prescribed would cause a "positive" reading
on a urine test and that Padro was found "on the move with a crushed narcotic
in his possession." The hearing officer then sanctioned Padro to 270 days of
administrative segregation, 270 days' loss of commutation time, 30 days' loss of
recreation privileges, and 365 days of urine monitoring and permanent loss of
contact visits.
Padro administratively appealed this decision. On May 8, 2018, the
Assistant Superintendent at the prison upheld the hearing officer's decision but
modified the sanctions to 91 days of administrative segregation, 180 days' loss
A-4377-17T2
4
of commutation time, 30 days' loss of recreation privileges, 365 days of urine
monitoring, and 365 days, rather than permanent loss of contact visits. The
Assistant Superintendent confirmed she imposed the more lenient sanctions in
light of Padro's recent disciplinary history. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Padro argues the agency's decision was not based on
substantial evidence in the record. Further, he maintains he was barred from
calling a fact witness and presenting exculpatory evidence. In particular, he now
insists, without proofs, that Nurse Francois gave him permission to take his
medication after physical therapy. However, he did not raise this claim during
his adjudication hearing or in the course of his administrative appeal. Moreover,
he did not complain during his administrative appeal that he was denied
confrontation with Nurse Francois.
In Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973), the Supreme
Court held that any issue not properly preserved at the hearing level may not be
considered at the appellate level unless the issue relates to jurisdiction or
concerns matters of great public interest. Padro's appeal does not raise
jurisdictional issues or matters of public interest. Thus, we will not consider
any arguments not raised during his adjudication hearing or the administrative
appeal.
A-4377-17T2
5
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)).
Here, we are satisfied Padro's guilt was based on sufficient evidence in
the record, as documented by the hearing officer. Additionally, we note
prohibited act *.205 is a Category B offense. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(svii).
Conviction of this act will:
result in a sanction of no less than [ninety-one] days
and no more than 180 days of administrative
segregation per incident and one or more of the
sanctions listed at N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g), unless a
medical or mental health professional determines that
the inmate is not appropriate for administrative
segregation placement.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2).]
The additional sanctions referenced in N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2) include:
A-4377-17T2
6
1. Loss of one or more correctional facility privileges
up to 30 calendar days;
2. Loss of commutation time up to 365 calendar days,
subject to confirmation by the Administrator;
3. Loss of furlough privileges for up to two months;
4. Up to two weeks confinement to room or housing
area;
5. Any sanction prescribed for On-The-Spot Correction
(see N.J.A.C. 10A:4-7);
6. Confiscation; and/or
7. Up to 14 hours extra duty, to be performed within a
maximum of two weeks.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g).]
If "a medical or mental health professional determines that [an] inmate is
not appropriate for administrative segregation placement," then that inmate will
receive one or more of the above seven sanctions, but will not be sanctioned
with administrative segregation. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g).
We defer to the DOC's zero tolerance drug and alcohol policy, N.J.A.C.
10A:1-2.2. Because Padro was found guilty of prohibited act *.205, he was
subject to the termination of contact visit privileges and became ineligible for
consideration for any custody status lower than medium custody until after
contact visit privileges were reinstated. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(p).
A-4377-17T2
7
Following our review of the record, we find that not only was there
substantial, credible evidence of Padro's guilt, but that, as a matter of fairness,
he was provided adequate due process protections in the filing, processing, and
hearing of the charges against him. Padro has not demonstrated a deviation from
the sanction guidelines. Indeed, he was granted leniency in his sanctions based
on a review of his recent disciplinary history. We discern no legal basis to
interfere. It is well established that asterisk offenses "are considered the most
serious and result in the most severe sanctions." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). Here,
Padro's sanction of ninety-one days of administrative segregation was the
minimum amount of time required under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2), and the
balance of his sanctions also were within the permissible range of sanctions,
both before and after they were modified. Padro's remaining arguments do not
warrant discussion in a written opinion. Rule 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-4377-17T2
8