Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-4942-14T2 DOCKET NO. A-5335-14T2
11-23-2016
J.T., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Respondent.
J.T., appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Suzanne Davies, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief in A-4942-14; Nicole E. Adams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief in A-5335-14).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges Fasciale and Gilson. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. J.T., appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Suzanne Davies, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief in A-4942-14; Nicole E. Adams, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief in A-5335-14). PER CURIAM
Appellant J.T. has been civilly committed to the Special Treatment Unit (STU) in accordance with the Sexually Violent Predator Act, N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38. On June 2, 2015, the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) denied appellant's request that (1) the DOC install cable television in the STU, and (2) the DOC allow him to make direct purchases from Amazon.com, Inc. (Amazon). Appellant appeals from these two final agency decisions. We affirm and issue one consolidated opinion addressing both appeals.
Appellant argues that his appeal involves a decision by both the DOC and the New Jersey Department of Human Services. The STU is managed by the DOC administrator and the clinical director of the Department of Human Services, Division of Mental Health and Addiction Services (DMHAS). N.J.A.C. 10:36A-1.5. As appellant filed his requests with the DOC associate administrator and his administrative appeals with the DOC administrator, we treat the appeals as coming from final agency decisions by the DOC. --------
In May 2015, appellant submitted two separate forms requesting (1) the installation of cable television in the STU, and (2) STU residents be permitted to order items directly from Amazon. In support of his request for cable television, appellant pointed out that other DOC facilities have basic cable that is paid for by the DOC. With regard to his request to make direct purchases from Amazon, appellant contended that STU residents have a civil right to purchase merchandise electronically from legitimate businesses through the internet, such as Amazon.
The associate administrator of the STU denied both requests explaining that there were insufficient funds in the STU residential welfare account to pay for cable television, and DOC policies do not allow STU residents to receive items from third-party businesses, such as Amazon. In other words, the DOC prohibited source-of-sale purchases through the internet. Appellant administratively appealed and, on June 2, 2015, the DOC administrator issued two final agency decisions denying both of appellant's requests.
Our review of agency action is limited. "An appellate court ordinarily will reverse the decision of an administrative agency only when the agency's decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or [] is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.'" Ramirez v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). Furthermore, "[i]t is settled that '[a]n administrative agency's interpretation of statutes and regulations within its implementing and enforcing responsibility is ordinarily entitled to our deference.'" Wnuck v. N.J. Div. of Motor Vehicles, 337 N.J. Super. 52, 56 (App. Div. 2001) (second alteration in the original) (quoting In re Appeal by Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 307 N.J. Super. 93, 102 (App. Div. 1997)). The DOC is given broad discretion in matters affecting the STU.
On these appeals, appellant makes three arguments: (1) the DOC's decisions were arbitrary and capricious because his requests were denied without being presented to the Inter-Agency Oversight Board (IAOB); (2) the denial of cable television was arbitrary because other correctional facilities provide cable television at the DOC's expense; and (3) the denial of his request to make source-of-sale purchases from Amazon was made without providing reasons for what appellant contends was a change of policy.
The IAOB is defined as:
[a] board of representatives appointed by the Commissioners of the Department of Corrections and the Department of Human Services that participate in oversight of the Special Treatment Unit in order to facilitate the coordination of STU policies and procedures pursuant to N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.34. Such representatives shall include [d]epartmental administrative or executive staff and shall not be limited to or exclusively comprised of STU staff directly responsible for managing the day-to-day operations within an STU.
[N.J.A.C. 10:36A-1.4.]
The DOC maintains that daily decisions such as whether to provide cable television or whether STU residents can make source-of-sale purchases from third parties do not require approval by the IAOB. Instead, the DOC maintains that such daily decisions can be made by the DOC administrator and the DMHAS clinical director under N.J.A.C. 10:36A-1.5. We discern nothing arbitrary or capricious in that administrative determination.
Amenities in the STU, such as television services, are funded by resident welfare funds. N.J.A.C. 10:36A-10.2(c). Control of the funds in the resident welfare account is vested in the DOC administrator and the DMHAS clinical director, who can consult with the IAOB. See N.J.A.C. 10:36A-10.2(b) ("the DOC [a]dministrator and DMHAS [c]linical [d]irector, in consultation with the [IAOB], shall be jointly responsible for the control and authorization of all expenditures of resident welfare funds.").
Here, the DOC associate administrator and administrator determined that there were insufficient funds in the residential welfare account to pay for basic cable television at the STU. The DOC maintains that such a decision did not need to be presented to the IAOB because the decision did not involve the discretionary expenditure or control of the funds. Given the nature of the amenity at issue - - cable television - - we find nothing arbitrary or capricious in the denial of the request without the involvement of the IAOB.
Appellant's remaining arguments do not warrant a detailed discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(d) and (e). The succinct response to appellant's second argument regarding cable television is that just because other DOC facilities have basic television, does not compel the DOC to provide cable television at the STU. Television services in the STU are funded by inmate welfare funds. See N.J.A.C. 10A:35-10.2 (describing resident welfare funds for the STU). There is no requirement that the State pay for cable television services for residents of the STU.
We also discern nothing arbitrary or capricious in the DOC's decision to prohibit STU residents from purchasing merchandise from Amazon. Such decisions are committed to the discretion of the DOC administrator and the DMHAS clinical director. N.J.A.C. 10:36A-1.5.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION