IN THE MATTER OF KEVIN NEWSOM, ETC. (NEW JERSEY CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                              NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3273-19
    IN THE MATTER OF
    KEVIN NEWSOM, NEW
    JERSEY STATE PRISON.
    ______________________
    Argued December 14, 2021 – Decided January 7, 2022
    Before Judges Vernoia and Firko.
    On appeal from the New Jersey Civil Service
    Commission, Docket No. 2015-2238.
    Donald C. Barbati argued the cause for appellant Kevin
    Newsom (Crivelli & Barbati, LLC, attorneys; Donald
    C. Barbati, on the briefs).
    Jana R. DiCosmo, Deputy Attorney General, argued the
    cause for respondent New Jersey Department of
    Corrections (Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney
    General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney
    General, of counsel; Paul D. Nieves, Deputy Attorney
    General, on the brief).
    Andrew J. Bruck, Acting Attorney General, attorney for
    respondent New Jersey Civil Service Commission
    (Steven M. Gleeson, Deputy Attorney General, on the
    statement in lieu of the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Kevin Newsom appeals from a March 16, 2020 Civil Service Commission
    final agency decision and order adopting an administrative law judge's (ALJ)
    decision denying his order to show cause seeking the reopening of a disciplinary
    proceeding that ended with a 2016 Commission decision upholding New Jersey
    State Prison's (NJSP) removal of him from his position as a corrections sergeant,
    and denying his motion for summary disposition on the disciplinary charges.
    We affirm the Commission's order denying Newsom's motion for summary
    disposition and vacate the Commission's denial of the order to show cause
    seeking to reopen the disciplinary proceeding based on newly discovered
    evidence. We remand for the Commission to consider Newsom's request to
    reopen the disciplinary proceeding under the correct legal standard.
    I.
    There have been three separate proceedings before the Commission
    related to Newsom's challenge to NJSP's December 30, 2014 removal of him
    from his position as a corrections sergeant. We briefly describe the disciplinary
    charges that resulted in the proceedings, and the proceedings themselves, to
    provide context for our discussion of the issues presented.
    On December 30, 2014, NJSP issued a final notice of disciplinary action
    removing Newsom from his position as a corrections sergeant for conduct
    A-3273-19
    2
    unbecoming a public employee, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(6), and other sufficient
    cause, N.J.A.C. 4A:2-2.3(a)(11). The notice alleged that on October 29, 2010,
    Newsom caused serious bodily injury to NJSP inmate Bradley Peterson by
    striking him "in the head several times with a metal baton while Peterson was
    handcuffed, shackled[,] and offering no resistance."
    The Disciplinary Proceeding
    The first proceeding before the Commission began when Newsom
    appealed from his removal. The Commission referred the matter to the Office
    of Administrative Law as a contested case, and an ALJ conducted an eight-day
    hearing on the disciplinary charges against Newsom. The ALJ subsequently
    issued a detailed February 24, 2016 written decision finding Newsom struck
    Peterson with an extended baton and upholding Newsom's removal.          The
    disciplinary proceeding ended on April 25, 2016, when the Commission adopted
    the ALJ's decision.1 Newsom did not appeal from the Commission's decision.
    Newsom's Request to Reopen the Disciplinary Proceeding
    The second proceeding before the Commission commenced almost two
    years later, on January 9, 2018, when Newsom filed an order to show cause
    1
    The ALJ's February 24, 2016 decision was deemed adopted by the
    Commission on April 25, 2016, pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:14-204.
    A-3273-19
    3
    seeking: vacatur of the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision; the reopening of
    the   disciplinary   proceeding;   and   summary     disposition   reversing   the
    Commission's decision and dismissing the disciplinary charges. In support of
    his order to show cause, Newsom relied on what he claimed was newly
    discovered evidence he obtained in a federal lawsuit brought by Peterson against
    Newsom and other NJSP corrections officers. In the lawsuit, Peterson claimed
    Newsom and the other officers violated his civil rights during the October 29,
    2010 incident that resulted in the disciplinary charges against Newsom.
    More particularly, Newsom relied on a video recording of a statement
    Peterson gave to the Mercer County Prosecutor's Office following the October
    29, 2010 incident. Newsom claimed the recording was first provided to him
    during discovery in Peterson's federal civil rights case.2 He argued the recording
    constituted newly discovered evidence that exonerated him on the disciplinary
    charges because he is African American and, during the statement, Peterson said
    the person who struck him with the baton was a "tall, bald, white guy." Newsom
    argued the newly discovered statement warranted vacatur of the Commission's
    2
    Newsom asserted that only a portion of the recording was made available to
    him during the disciplinary proceeding before the ALJ and the Commission. The
    portion of the recording provided at that time did not include the statement from
    Peterson that Newsom claimed supported the relief sought in his order to show
    cause.
    A-3273-19
    4
    April 25, 2016 final decision and either a reversal of the Commission's decision
    or a reopening of the disciplinary proceeding.
    The Commission interpreted Newsom's order to show cause as a motion
    for reconsideration of its April 25, 2016 decision. The Commission determined
    Newsom's request was untimely under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(a) because it was not
    filed within forty-five days of the April 25, 2016 decision. 3 The Commission
    denied the order to show cause on that basis, and Newsom appealed.
    In our decision on Newsom's appeal, we found the forty-five-day time
    limit for filing a motion for reconsideration from a Commission decision was
    inapplicable because Newsom        did not seek "reconsideration of the
    [Commission's] prior decision." In re Kevin Newsom, New Jersey State Prison,
    No. A-3194-17 (App. Div. July 30, 2019) (slip op. at 4). We determined
    Newsom's order to show cause actually "sought to reopen the hearing to allow
    consideration of evidence he contends was previously unavailable." Id. at 4.
    We therefore reversed the Commission's decision denying the order to show
    cause on timeliness grounds and "remand[ed] . . . for the Commission to
    consider [Newsom's] application to reopen the hearing" in the disciplinary
    3
    Under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(a), a party may petition the Commission for
    reconsideration "[w]ithin [forty-five] days of receipt of a [Commission]
    decision."
    A-3273-19
    5
    proceeding that ended with the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision. As noted,
    the decision adopted the ALJ's determination NJSP properly removed Newsom
    because he struck a handcuffed and shackled inmate, Peterson, with an extended
    baton. Id. at 7.
    The Remand Proceeding
    The third proceeding arising from Newsom's challenge to NJSP's removal
    decision followed our remand. The Commission referred the case to the same
    ALJ that conducted the original proceeding on the disciplinary charges and who
    rendered the February 24, 2016 decision the Commission adopted on April 25,
    2016.
    Prior to the ALJ's disposition of the issue we remanded—consideration of
    Newsom's request to vacate the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision and
    reopen the disciplinary proceeding—Newsom filed a motion for summary
    disposition seeking reversal of the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision and
    dismissal of the disciplinary charges. In support of the motion, Newsom claimed
    a no-cause jury verdict in his favor in Peterson's federal civil rights required
    reversal of the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision and dismissal of the
    disciplinary charges based on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds.
    A-3273-19
    6
    The ALJ subsequently rendered a written decision on Newsom's pending
    applications. The ALJ found our remand "decision [did] not require a hearing,"
    and explained that "in an attempt to promptly address [the] matter, [he] did not
    reschedule a hearing, but reviewed the federal-court trial testimony of
    [Peterson], reviewed the videotape of [Peterson's] interview, and closed the
    matter."
    The ALJ expressly recognized our remand required consideration of
    Newsom's "application to reopen the hearing," and the ALJ explained the issues
    presented included whether Peterson's video recorded statement "warranted the
    reopening of the hearing."     However, although our decision made clear
    Newsom's order to show cause was not a motion for reconsideration, the ALJ
    incongruously stated that an issue presented on remand was whether Peterson's
    recorded statement warranted "reconsideration of" the Commission's April 25,
    2016 decision.
    In his legal analysis of the issues, the ALJ did not directly address the
    precise and limited issue we required be considered on remand. That is, the ALJ
    did not consider or decide whether Newsom's order to show cause supported
    vacatur of the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision and a reopening of the
    disciplinary proceeding. Instead, the ALJ cited, explained, and applied only the
    A-3273-19
    7
    standard for "reconsideration" of an order under Rule 4:49-2. For example, the
    ALJ relied on D'Atria v. D'Atria, 
    242 N.J. Super. 392
    , 401-02 (Ch. Div. 1990),
    where it was explained that a motion for reconsideration "[s]hould be utilized
    only for those cases where (1) the court has expressed its decision based upon a
    palpably incorrect or irrational basis, or (2) it is obvious that the court either did
    not consider, or failed to appreciate the significance of probative, competent
    evidence." Thus, the ALJ analyzed only whether the Commission's April 25,
    2016 decision should be vacated under the standard for reconsideration. 4
    The ALJ then considered the putative newly discovered evidence —
    Peterson's video recorded statement describing the officer who struck him —
    and the evidence and testimony Peterson presented during the federal civil rights
    trial. In his opinion, the ALJ noted that in Peterson's submissions to the federal
    court, he asserted Newsom was the individual who struck him with the baton.
    The ALJ further noted that at the federal trial, Peterson represented he did not
    4
    If Newsom's order to show cause actually constitutes a motion for
    reconsideration, the ALJ should have dismissed it as untimely under N.J.A.C.
    4A:2-1.6(a). Our prior decision, however, explained the order to show cause is
    not a motion for reconsideration that is time-barred under N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6(a),
    and is instead a motion to reopen the prior disciplinary hearing. In re Kevin
    Newsom, slip op. at 4. Indeed, that is the precise reason we reversed the
    Commission's dismissal of the order to show cause and remanded for the
    Commission's consideration of Newsom's request to reopen the disciplinary
    proceeding. Id. at 4, 7.
    A-3273-19
    8
    know who hit him with the baton and he had vision issues prior to the October
    29, 2010 incident.
    The ALJ also explained Peterson did not testify in the original disciplinary
    proceeding, and the determination Newsom struck Peterson was based on the
    testimony and statements of other corrections officers who were present when
    the incident occurred and who the ALJ deemed credible. The ALJ concluded
    Peterson's various statements "are all in conflict with each other and provide [a]
    sufficient basis to question the credibility of the videotaped statement" upon
    which Newsom relied in support of his order to show cause to reopen.
    Based on those findings, the ALJ reasoned that although the newly
    discovered video recording contradicted evidence upon which the February 24,
    2016 decision was based, Peterson's statement in the recording was not
    sufficiently credible to undermine the decision and determination Newsom
    struck Peterson with the baton. The ALJ then denied Newsom's "motion for
    reconsideration" because Newsom did not demonstrate the ALJ acted
    "arbitrarily, capriciously, or unreasonably," and the credible evidence supported
    the initial determination he made in the February 24, 2016 decision that Newsom
    committed the charged disciplinary offenses.
    A-3273-19
    9
    The ALJ determined Newsom was not entitled to reconsideration of the
    Commission's April 25, 2016 decision, but the ALJ nonetheless addressed
    Newsom's motion for summary disposition. The ALJ concluded the no-cause
    verdict in the federal civil rights case did not warrant reversal of the
    Commission's April 25, 2016 decision or dismissal of the disciplinary charges
    on res judicata and collateral estoppel grounds. This appeal followed.
    II.
    "Our review of administrative agency action is limited." Russo v. Bd. of
    Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 
    206 N.J. 14
    , 27 (2011). A reviewing "court
    ordinarily should not disturb an administrative agency's determinations or
    findings unless there is a clear showing that (1) the agency did not follow the
    law; (2) the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable; or (3) the
    decision was not supported by substantial evidence." In re Virtua-West Jersey
    Hosp. Voorhees for a Certificate of Need, 
    194 N.J. 413
    , 422 (2008). "The
    burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or
    unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the administrative action." In
    re Arenas, 
    385 N.J. Super. 440
    , 443-44 (App. Div. 2006).
    Newsom argues the Commission erred by dismissing the matter following
    our remand without holding a hearing. He contends that following the remand,
    A-3273-19
    10
    his motion for summary disposition was the only application pending before the
    Commission, and the Commission could not properly decide his motion without
    a hearing.
    Newsom's arguments put the proverbial cart before the horse. He fails to
    recognize that before he could properly file a motion for summary disposition
    dismissing the disciplinary charges, he had to first reopen the disciplinary
    proceeding which ended with the Commission's April 25, 2016 adoption of the
    ALJ's February 24, 2016 decision upholding NJSP's removal of him from his
    corrections sergeant position. Newsom also ignores that, as we explained in our
    initial decision, his order to show cause constituted a motion to reopen the prior
    disciplinary proceeding, and we remanded to the Commission for it to consider
    and decide that application.      We directed that the Commission consider
    Newsom's application to reopen the disciplinary hearing based on his claim he
    was entitled to such relief based on newly discovered evidence. See Flanigan v.
    McFeely, 
    20 N.J. 414
    , 420 (1956) ("[T]he trial court is under a peremptory duty
    to obey in the particular case the mandate of the appellate court precisely as it
    is written.").
    Thus, contrary to Newsom's claim that the only application pending before
    the Commission on remand was his motion for summary disposition, our remand
    A-3273-19
    11
    order required the Commission to decide Newsom's application to reopen the
    disciplinary proceeding that the Commission had erroneously denied as time-
    barred.    Although framed as a motion to reopen the disciplinary hearing,
    Newsom's order to show cause is more accurately characterized as a motion to
    vacate the Commission's April 25, 2016 final decision and order. That is
    because the disciplinary proceeding could be reopened only if Newsom obtained
    relief from what was otherwise the Commission's final decision upholding his
    removal.
    The ALJ and the Commission misinterpreted our remand order. In our
    decision, we made clear Newsom's order to show cause was not a request for
    reconsideration of the Commission's April 25, 2016 adoption of the ALJ's
    February 24, 2016 decision, and we remanded for the Commission to consider
    Newsom's motion to reopen based on newly discovered evidence. In re Kevin
    Newsom, slip op. at 4. Nonetheless, on remand the ALJ never directly addressed
    Newsom's motion to reopen and instead the ALJ applied the standard for
    reconsideration motions, deciding Peterson's newly discovered statement did not
    warrant reconsideration of the ALJ's February 24, 2016 decision upholding
    Newsom's removal. The Commission similarly ignored the requirements of our
    remand and adopted the ALJ's determination under the reconsideration standard.
    A-3273-19
    12
    "It is settled that an administrative body has the inherent power, in the
    absence of legislative restriction, to reopen or modify orders previously
    entered." In re Adamar of N.J., Inc., 
    222 N.J. Super. 464
    , 474 (App. Div. 1988).
    That power "may be invoked by administrative agencies to serve the ends of
    essential justice and the policy of the law," Minsavage for Minsavage v. Bd. of
    Trs., Teachers' Pension and Annuity Fund, 
    240 N.J. 103
    , 107-08 (2019) (quoting
    In re Van Orden, 
    383 N.J. Super. 410
    , 421 (App. Div. 2006)), but it "must be
    exercised reasonably and invoked only for good cause shown, and only where
    the applicant acted with reasonable diligence," In re Adamar, 
    222 N.J. Super. at 474
    .
    The New Jersey Administrative Code includes a regulation prescribing the
    procedure and standard for a motion for reconsideration of a Commission's final
    decision and order. See N.J.A.C. 4A:2-1.6. The Administrative Code does not
    include a comparable provision setting the procedure or standard for a motion
    to reopen a final Commission decision based on newly discovered evidence.
    The New Jersey Uniform Administrative Procedure Rules, N.J.A.C. 1:1-
    1.2 to -21.6, in part fills the gap created by the absence of a specific rule for
    vacatur of a Commission final decision and reopening of a proceeding based on
    newly discovered evidence. N.J.A.C. 1:1-1.3(a) provides that "[i]n the absence
    A-3273-19
    13
    of a rule, a judge [in an administrative proceeding] may proceed in accordance
    with the New Jersey Court Rules, provided the rules are compatible with " the
    purposes of "achiev[ing] just results, simplicity in procedure, fairness in
    administration and the elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay."
    Our Court Rules make express provision for motions to set aside a final
    judgment and reopen a matter based on newly discovered evidence. In a manner
    consistent and compatible with the purposes of the New Jersey Uniform
    Administrative Procedure Rules, Rule 4:50-1(b) provides that a party may be
    relieved from "a final judgment or order" based on "newly discovered evidence
    which would probably alter the judgment or order and which by due diligence
    could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial." A "party
    seeking relief" under Rule 4:50-1(b) "must demonstrate 'that the evidence would
    probably have changed the result, that it was unobtainable by the exercise of due
    diligence for use at the trial, and that the evidence was not merely cumulative.'"
    DEG, LLC v. Twp. of Fairfield, 
    198 N.J. 242
    , 264 (2009) (quoting Quick Chek
    Food Stores v. Twp. of Springfield, 
    83 N.J. 438
    , 445 (1980)). All three of these
    requirements must be met to justify relief from a final order. 
    Ibid.
    Here, the ALJ's and the Commission's erroneous application of the
    reconsideration standard on remand resulted in their failure to decide the issue
    A-3273-19
    14
    we directed must be considered on remand: whether Newsom is entitled to
    vacatur of the Commission's April 25, 2016 decision, and thereby reopen the
    disciplinary proceeding, based on newly discovered evidence. See Flanigan, 
    20 N.J. at 420
    . We are therefore constrained to vacate the Commission's March 16,
    2020 order denying Newsom's order to show cause, and we again remand for the
    Commission to consider, decide, and make findings on that issue in accordance
    with the applicable legal standard.5
    Newsom also argues the Commission erred by denying his motion for
    summary disposition reversing NJSP's December 30, 2014 final notice of
    disciplinary action removing him from his position.          However, Newsom's
    motion, should not have been filed or considered unless and until he obtained
    5
    We note that even if we were inclined to do so, the record on appeal does not
    permit us to decide the merits of the order to show cause. Newsom does not
    include the complete record concerning the motion in the appendix on appeal.
    For example, the order to show cause was supported by the certification of
    Newsom's counsel, but the certification is not included in the appellate record.
    See R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I) (requiring the appendix on appeal include "such . . . parts
    of the record . . . as are essential to the proper consideration of the issues"). We
    are not "obliged to attempt review of an issue when the relevant portions of the
    record are not included." Cmty. Hosp. Grp., Inc. v. Blume Goldfaden Berkowitz
    Donnelly Fried & Forte, P.C., 
    381 N.J. Super. 119
    , 127 (App. Div. 2005); see
    also Soc'y Hill Condo. Ass'n v. Soc'y Hill Assocs., 
    347 N.J. Super. 163
    , 177-78
    (App. Div. 2002) (finding that, because of an appellant's failure to adhere to the
    requirements of Rule 2:6-1(a)(1)(I) "rendered review on the merits impossible,
    we ha[d] no alternative but to affirm").
    A-3273-19
    15
    vacatur of the Commission's April 25, 2016 final decision and a reopening of
    the disciplinary proceeding. Most simply stated, Newsom could not properly
    seek summary disposition of the disciplinary charges in his favor because the
    charges were no longer pending following entry of the Commission's April 25,
    2016 final decision.
    For that reason, we affirm the Commission's denial of the motion for
    summary disposition, but we do so on procedural grounds and without prejudice
    to Newsom's right to renew the motion if, on remand, the Commission grants
    the order to show cause to vacate the April 25, 2016 final decision and reopen
    the disciplinary proceeding. See Hayes v. Delamotte, 
    231 N.J. 373
    , 387 (2018)
    ("[I]t is well-settled that appeals are taken from orders and judgments and not
    from opinions, oral decisions, informal written decisions, or reasons given for
    the ultimate conclusion." (quoting Do-Wop Corp. v. City of Rahway, 
    168 N.J. 191
    , 199 (2001))). We have not considered the merits of either Newsom's res
    judicata and collateral estoppel claims or the Commission's March 16, 2020
    decision affirming the ALJ's denial of summary disposition motion, and we
    express no opinion on them.6
    6
    We note we would otherwise be unable to address the merits of Newsom's
    premature motion for summary disposition because he fails to include the
    A-3273-19
    16
    Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded for further proceedings in
    accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
    complete motion record presented to the ALJ and Commission in the appendix
    on appeal. See R. 2:6-1(a)(1)(I). For example, Newsom's motion was supported
    by a certification of his counsel that is not included in the appendix. In addition,
    the ALJ's February 14, 2020 decision following the remand refers to numerous
    exhibits and transcripts of testimony that were submitted by the parties in
    support of, and in opposition to, Newsom's motion for summary disposition, but
    not all of those those exhibits and transcripts are included in the record on
    appeal. See Cmty. Hosp. Grp., Inc., 
    381 N.J. Super. at 127
    ; Soc'y Hill Condo.
    Ass'n, 
    347 N.J. Super. 163
    , 177-78.
    A-3273-19
    17