Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2146-13T1
03-25-2015
WILLIAM MENTER, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
William Menter, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lucy E. Fritz, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Maven and Carroll. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. William Menter, appellant pro se. John J. Hoffman, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Lucy E. Fritz, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
William Menter, a State prisoner, appeals a December 26, 2013 final agency decision of the Department of Corrections. The decision upheld a disciplinary hearing officer's finding that Menter committed prohibited acts *.002 (assaulting any person), *.004 (fighting with another person), and *.306 (conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility), in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.
Menter primarily contests the sanctions that the Department imposed, which included fifteen days of detention, 300 days of administrative segregation, 300 days loss of commutation time, and 180 days of lost recreation privileges on the combined *.002 and *.004 charges, along with fifteen days of detention, 180 of days administrative segregation, and 180 days of lost recreation privileges on the *.306 charge. We affirm.
The fighting incident occurred on the morning of November 26, 2013. Shortly after 8:00 a.m. that day, a corrections officer observed Menter approach another inmate and strike that inmate several times with his right fist. All available corrections department personnel responded to the incident, causing normal prisoner movements to be interrupted.
Menter was timely served with the disciplinary charges. He pled guilty to the *.004 and *.306 charges, and not guilty to the *.002 assault charge. Menter requested and was granted counsel substitute. He did not seek to present witnesses or confront adverse witnesses, and contended that the other inmate verbally provoked him. Based on the responding officer's report, the medical reports, and a review of a video of the incident that confirmed Menter was the aggressor, the hearing officer found him guilty of assault, and imposed the sanctions noted above.
Menter appealed and requested leniency. The administrative appeal was denied by the Assistant Superintendent of the facility, who found that the evidence supported the hearing officer's decision, and that the sanctions imposed were "appropriate."
In his appeal, Menter argues in a single point:
BECAUSE THE SANCTION FOR THE DISCIPLINARY CHARGES WAS ARBITRARILY ASSESSED IT MUST BE CONSIDERED TO BE A VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS AND WARRANTS THE DISMISSAL OF THE CHARGES.
Having considered this argument in light of the record supplied to us and the applicable law, we find no merit to this contention. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We add only a few observations.
Our role in reviewing an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) (citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). Our function is to determine whether the administrative action was "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or . . . is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 (App. Div. 2005) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 188 N.J. 219 (2006).
Menter has failed to demonstrate that the Department arbitrarily imposed disciplinary sanctions upon him. In fact, he pled guilty to the charges of fighting and disrupting the prison facility. Additionally, the hearing officer was entitled to credit the officer's unrebutted testimony that Menter assaulted the other inmate repeatedly, and a video of the incident confirmed that Menter was the aggressor.
Menter has also failed to demonstrate that the resulting sanctions are arbitrary or excessive. When a prisoner is found guilty of an asterisk offense, applicable regulations allow imposition of up to fifteen days of disciplinary detention, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(a)(1); administrative segregation for up to one year if confirmed by the Classification Committee, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(a)(3); and loss of commutation time for up to one year, subject to confirmation by the Administrator, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(a)(4). Additionally, upon recommendation by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer/Adjustment Committee or the Administrator, the Classification Committee may approve additional sanctions, including loss of recreation privileges for up to 180 days. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g)(8). Absent demonstration of deviation from the applicable guidelines, we have no basis to interfere.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION