Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-5914-12T3
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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fasciale and Whipple.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 headphones, stamps, and "consumable items," such as laundry detergent. 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 headphones, stamps, and consumable items were not returned to him by the property officer.
A sergeant was assigned to investigate Ali-X's claim, and in August 2012, the sergeant completed a report that summarized the facts above and emphasized that Ali-X could not show that he had not given, bartered, or gambled away his headphones. Additionally, the report noted that the other items could have been disposed in a similar manner or used up. The report 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:
POINT IAli-X, in his reply brief, also contends:
AS AN ACT OF BAILMENT [THE DOC] IS TOTALLY LIABLE FOR ALI-X'S LOST PROPERTY.
POINT II
[THE DOC] DELIBERATE[LY] DISREGARDED [THE] DUE PROCESS REQUIREMENTS [AND] INFRINGED UPON THE PLAINTIFF'S CIVIL LIBERTIES.
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