Ali-X v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.

Full title: KASEEM ALI-X, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS…

Court: SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION

Date published: Apr 9, 2015

DOCKET NO. A-5915-12T3 (App. Div. Apr. 9, 2015)

Opinion

DOCKET NO. A-5915-12T3

04-09-2015

KASEEM ALI-X, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

Kaseem Ali-X, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Megan E. Shafranski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fasciale and Whipple. On appeal from New Jersey Department of Corrections. Kaseem Ali-X, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Megan E. Shafranski, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM

Kaseem Ali-X appeals from a July 3, 2013 final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (the "DOC") denying his property claim for lost photographs, letters, legal documents, legal work, and receipts. We affirm.

Ali-X is an inmate serving a sentence of thirty-five years to life for murder and other crimes. In early July 2012, Ali-X was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (the "prison"), and was moved from the disciplinary detention unit to a cell in a different wing. Several weeks later, a property officer delivered Ali-X's property from the detention unit to him while he was in a common area. By Ali-X's own admission, Ali-X then took some, but not all of that property back to his cell, leaving the rest unattended in the common area. Several days later, Ali-X submitted an inmate claim for lost property, in which he claimed that photographs, letters, legal documents, legal work, and receipts were not returned to him by the property officer.

A sergeant was assigned to investigate Ali-X's claim, and in September 2012, the sergeant completed a report that summarized the facts above and emphasized that when the property officer delivered the items, Ali-X did not say that any were missing. Moreover, the report noted that Ali-X left his property unattended in the common area, and concluded that there was "[n]o proof of negligence on the part of [DOC] staff[.]" Thereafter, in July 2013, the prison assistant superintendent denied Ali-X's claim on the basis of the sergeant's report.

On appeal, Ali-X argues in his amended brief:¹

1 Prior to filing his amended brief, Ali-X argued:

POINT I
[THE DOC] DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED THE CLAIMANT'S CIVIL LIBERTIES WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE TO RETALIATE BY UNLAWFULLY CAUSING LOST/MISSING PROPERTY[.]



A. [The DOC] Willfully And Wantonly Disregarded The Claimant's Property Rights With Malicious Intent To Cause Harm[.]



B. [The DOC] Willfully And Wantonly Disregarded The Claimant's Equal Protection Rights With Malicious Intent To Cause Harm[.]



C. [The DOC] Willfully And Wantonly Disregarded The Claimant's Due Process Rights With Malicious Intent To Cause Harm[.]



POINT II
CLAIMANT'S PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD BE AWARDED TO PUNISH AND DETER FUTURE MALICIOUS, EGREGIOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS ACTS OF WRONGFUL MISCONDUCT WHICH WILLFULLY AND WANTONLY DISREGARD[] CLAIMANT'S RIGHTS[.]

POINT I
[THE DOC] DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS WITH THE INTENT AND PURPOSE TO DEPRIVE THE CLAIMAINT'S CIVIL LIBERTIES AS AN ACT OF RETALIATION.

Ali-X, in his reply brief, also contends:

[THE DOC'S] DENIAL OF ALI-X'S CLAIM IS PER SE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS BECAUSE IT VIOLATES EXPRESS AND IMPLIED LEGISLATIVE POLICY.

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.

The scope of our review in an appeal from a final agency decision is limited. Decisions of administrative agencies will not be reversed unless shown to be "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or . . . not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

The property officer returned Ali-X's items, and, at that time, Ali-X did not say that any were missing. Ali-X then left some of his property unattended in a common area, and did not report any missing property until days later. The DOC investigated his claim, and determined that there was no evidence of negligence by prison staff. We find nothing in the record to suggest that this determination was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.

CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION