Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0936-13T3
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; Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fasciale and Whipple.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; Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
We note that Ali-X brought suit in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Special Civil Part. After various motions, the matter was eventually transferred to us pursuant to Rule 1:13-4(a).
Kaseem Ali-X appeals from a May 7, 2012 final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (the "DOC") denying his missing property claim. We affirm.
Ali-X is an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, where he is serving a sentence of thirty-five years to life for murder and other crimes. In December 2009, Ali-X was incarcerated at South Woods State Prison ("SWSP"), where he was placed in detention after an adjudication of guilt based on a disciplinary charge. In January 2010, he was released from detention and the DOC returned his property. Ali-X claims that he noticed missing articles and completed an inmate claim for lost property ("the claim form") describing the items. He asserts that in January 2010 he mailed the claim form to a lieutenant as instructed by the DOC, but that the lieutenant did not provide a copy for proof of submission.
A DOC investigation revealed that there was no record of a claim form submitted by Ali-X prior to May 2012. A SWSP administrator denied Ali-X's May 2012 claim, noting that DOC regulations required receipts indicating ownership of perishable items to be no older than thirty days and those showing ownership of non-perishable items to be no older than sixty days. Ali-X's claim was made over two years after the property allegedly went missing, and lacked any proof of ownership. Therefore, the administrator denied the claim as untimely, and found that Ali-X did not establish negligence on the part of the DOC.
On appeal, Ali-X argues:
POINT ONE
[THE DOC'S] FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS INFRINGED UPON THE APPELLANT'S CIVIL LIBERTIES[.]
POINT TWO
PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHOULD BE AWARDED TO PUNISH AND DETER FUTURE MALICIOUS, EGREGIOUS AND OUTRAGEOUS ACTS OF WILLFUL MISCONDUCT TO THE FEDERAL OR STATE CONSTITUTION[.]
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).
Ali-X submitted his claim without proof of ownership over the property, and did so over two years after the property allegedly went missing. The DOC investigated his claim, and determined that it was untimely and there was no evidence of negligence by SWSP 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