MALIK ALI VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS) ( 2018 )


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  •                         NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3807-15T2
    MALIK ALI,
    Appellant,
    v.
    NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
    CORRECTIONS,
    Respondent.
    ______________________________
    Submitted July 31, 2018 – Decided August 6, 2018
    Before Judges Sabatino and Mawla.
    On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
    Corrections.
    Malik Ali, appellant pro se.
    Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney
    for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer,
    Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
    Suzanne M. Davies, Deputy Attorney General,
    on the brief).
    PER CURIAM
    Appellant Malik Ali is an inmate serving a life sentence in
    New Jersey State Prison.            He appeals from a July 5, 2016 final
    agency decision of the Department of Corrections, finding him
    guilty under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1 of a prohibited act, *.803/*.751
    (attempting to bribe prison staff), and *.803/*.306 (attempted
    conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly
    running of the correctional facility). As a result of the finding,
    appellant forfeited the $600 in his prison account.
    According to the Department's findings, the facts leading to
    appellant's adjudication were that he solicited his daughter to
    receive money from a civilian.   The money was used to pay corrupt
    staff to smuggle contraband into the prison and launder money back
    to appellant by way of money orders, which were in the exact
    amounts of $200 and $400 each.       The Department relied upon an
    investigation by its Special Investigations Division ("SID") and
    letters sent by a fellow inmate, R.W., to the civilian with the
    money laundering instructions.
    On his initial appeal, appellant argued he should have had
    the opportunity at the original disciplinary hearing in November
    2014 to adduce the live testimony of R.W. in order to attack R.W.'s
    credibility, and potentially dispel the claim that appellant was
    at the center of the alleged money laundering scheme.      In June
    2016, we remanded to the Department to consider appellant's request
    for such live testimony.
    On remand, the Department denied appellant's request for live
    testimony, citing concerns that doing so would be hazardous to
    2                          A-3807-15T2
    prison security and could create a sense of intimidation and fear
    on   R.W.'s   part    if   he    gave      testimony      that    conflicted    with
    appellant's account.         The Department relied instead on R.W.'s
    letter, which named appellant as the recipient of the laundered
    funds. The Department noted appellant had not requested additional
    witness statements, and the written witness statement he had
    procured was vague and self-serving.                 The Department additionally
    found the funds from appellant's daughter matched the sum the
    civilian had been instructed to give her in the letter.
    On appeal from the remand determination, appellant argues the
    Department    did    not   follow    the       remand   instructions,     which    he
    believes mandated the live testimony of R.W.                     He argues he was
    deprived of due process because the Department's determination was
    based on evidence he could not review.                  He further argues he was
    not adjudicated guilty of an offense that mandated forfeiture of
    his prison account funds.
    Our scope of review in this prison disciplinary matter is
    limited.      We     generally      will       not   disturb     the   Department's
    administrative decision to impose disciplinary sanctions upon an
    inmate,    unless    the   inmate    demonstrates         that   the   decision    is
    arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable, or that the record lacks
    substantial, credible evidence to support that decision.                          See
    3                                A-3807-15T2
    Jacobs v. Stephens, 
    139 N.J. 212
    , 222 (1995); Figueroa v. N.J.
    Dep't of Corr., 
    414 N.J. Super. 186
    , 190 (App. Div. 2010).
    Applying     this   principle   of    deference,     we   affirm       the
    Department's final agency decision.              The Department has wide
    discretion as to whether to allow live testimony in disciplinary
    hearings.   See N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.13(a)(1).         We are unpersuaded that
    the Department abused that discretion here, or that it violated
    appellant's due process rights.      Appellant had a fair opportunity
    to review the SID evidence the Department relied upon.             He does
    not explain specifically how live testimony would have likely
    changed the outcome.
    Moreover, the evidence in the record relied upon by the
    Department supports its determination, which was not arbitrary or
    capricious.     Finally, given that the adjudication was for money
    laundering,     the   remedy   imposed    upon    the   finding   of     guilt
    appropriately included the seizure of the laundered funds.
    All other arguments raised by appellant lack sufficient merit
    to warrant discussion.     R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D) and (E).
    Affirmed.
    4                                 A-3807-15T2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: A-3807-15T2

Filed Date: 8/6/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/20/2019