OBADIAH TAYLOR 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-5378-17T4
OBADIAH TAYLOR,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted October 3, 2019 – Decided October 30, 2019
Before Judges Mayer and Enright.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Obadiah Taylor, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Suzanne Marie Davies, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Petitioner Obadiah Taylor, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, appeals
from an April 12, 2018 final administrative decision of the Department of
Corrections (DOC), affirming a guilty finding by a disciplinary hearing officer
and imposing sanctions. The hearing officer found petitioner guilty of
prohibited acts *.803/*.306, attempting to disrupt or interfere with the security
or orderly running of a correctional facility. See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We
affirm.
In 2017, the Special Investigations Division (SID) conducted an
investigation of suspected "street-to-street" transactions among inmates at
various State prison facilities. In a "street-to-street" transaction, inmates use
individuals outside the prison to arrange for the transfer of money that is then
used to fund illegal activities by the inmates, including the purchase of illegal
drugs, cellular telephones, and other contraband. Such conduct violates the
DOC's rules and regulations and interferes with the orderly running of the
corrections facilities.
As part of the investigation, the SID recorded telephone calls in July 2017
made by petitioner to friends and family members, requesting money to finance
suspected drug transactions. During those recorded communications, petitioner
spoke cryptically to conceal the nature of the transactions.
A-5378-17T4
2
In February 2018, the SID issued a report, detailing illegal drug
transactions within various prison facilities. Based on that report, on February
8, 2018, petitioner was charged with committing prohibited acts *.803/*.306.
A disciplinary hearing was conducted. Petitioner and his counsel
substitute were permitted to listen to the SID's recorded telephone calls.
Petitioner did not testify at the hearing and did not cross-examine the
Department's witnesses.
The hearing officer concluded petitioner was guilty of prohibited acts
*.803/*.306 because the evidence offered by the SID showed petitioner
employed associates outside the corrections facility to conduct illegal financial
transactions. The hearing officer also found petitioner admitted to conduct
designed to circumvent the institutional telephone monitoring system by
speaking in a cryptic language to avoid detection of his illegal transactions.
The hearing officer recommended petitioner be sanctioned to 180 days'
administrative segregation, 180 days' loss of commutation time, 30 days' loss of
recreation privileges, and 365 days' loss of telephone privileges. The DOC
affirmed the hearing officer's recommendation but modified the sanction,
reducing the loss of telephone privileges to sixty days.
A-5378-17T4
3
On appeal, petitioner contends the DOC's decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and not supported by substantial credible evidence. In addition, he
argues the disciplinary hearing violated his procedural due process rights.
Our review of an administrative agency decision is limited. Circus
Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1, 9 (2009). We
will not disturb an administrative agency determination absent a showing the
decision was "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or not supported by
substantial credible evidence in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 412
N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010) (citing Bailey v. Bd. of Review, 339 N.J.
Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001)). "Substantial evidence" is "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)).
We first examine petitioner's claim that the DOC violated his due process
rights. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-96 (1995) (establishing
procedural safeguards to ensure prison disciplinary proceedings meet due
process requirements for inmates facing disciplinary charges). An incarcerated
inmate facing a disciplinary proceeding is not entitled to the full panoply of
rights accorded to a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Avant v. Clifford, 67
A-5378-17T4
4
N.J. 496, 522 (1975). An inmate is entitled to written notice of the charges prior
to the hearing; an impartial tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and present
documentary evidence; a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse
witnesses; a right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the
reasons for the sanctions imposed; and, if the charges are complex, the
assistance of counsel substitute. Id. at 525-33; see also N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.1
to -9.28.
Having reviewed the record, and applying these principles, we are
satisfied petitioner was afforded these procedural safeguards. He was given
written notice of the charges within forty-eight hours after the SID issued its
report and at least twenty-four hours prior to the disciplinary hearing. Petitioner,
who had assigned counsel substitute, had the right to call witnesses and cross-
examine the DOC's witnesses but declined to do so. He was allowed to listen
to the SID's recorded telephone calls prior to the hearing. While petitioner was
unable to review the confidential SID report, he reviewed a summary of the
report in accordance with N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(b).
We next consider petitioner's claim that the DOC's decision was arbitrary,
capricious, and not based on substantial credible evidence. Based on our review
of the record, petitioner's guilty determination was grounded in substantial and
A-5378-17T4
5
credible evidence, including the SID's report and petitioner's recorded telephone
calls. Absent evidence presented by petitioner to the contrary, the DOC's
determination was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
We also agree that the infractions committed by petitioner undermined the
security and orderly running of the corrections facility. Therefore the imposed
sanctions, as modified, were appropriate.
Affirmed.
A-5378-17T4
6