Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0962-11T1
02-28-2013
HECTOR SANABRIA, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Hector Sanabria, appellant pro se. Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Susan M. Scott, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Alvarez and Waugh.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Hector Sanabria, appellant pro se.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Susan M. Scott, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Hector Sanabria appeals the final agency action of the Department of Corrections (Department) continuing his placement in the management control unit (MCU) at New Jersey State Prison (Prison). We affirm.
Sanabria is serving a ninety-year sentence with a ninety-year minimum term for offenses including murder, aggravated assault, weapons possession, and drug possession. He was placed in the MCU in February 2007, based upon his participation in a group known as Hispanic Americans for Progress (HAP), which was determined to have smuggled contraband and laundered money through its office at the Prison. The contraband included drugs, weapons, and escape paraphernalia. As a result of his participation, Sanabria was adjudicated guilty of two disciplinary offenses and appropriate discipline was imposed.
Based upon the nature of Sanabria's affiliation with HAP, including his role as a member of the HAP board of directors, the MCU Review Committee (Committee) determined that Sanabria required "the safety and structure" provided by the MCU. As required by N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.10 and -2.11, Sanabria's placement was the subject of a routine review at least every three months, as well as an annual review.
At the routine review held on June 22, 2011, the Committee determined that Sanabria continued "to pose a threat to the safety and security of any correctional facility," and continued his placement in the MCU. Sanabria filed an administrative appeal, which was denied in September 2011. This appeal followed.
The MCU is a "close custody unit" in the correctional facility. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-1.3. An inmate may be assigned to the MCU if the Committee finds that the inmate poses "a substantial threat: 1) To the safety of others; 2) Of damage to or destruction of property; or 3) Of interrupting the operation of a State correctional facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.5(a). When making this determination, the Committee considers a number of criteria, including the inmate's disciplinary records, past criminal offenses, number and location of past institutionalizations, reports from professional staff, reports indicating present involvement in criminal activity, evidence of unwillingness to follow rules and obey orders, inability to maintain a satisfactory work record, unsatisfactory performance in treatment or rehabilitative programs, and evidence of unwillingness to be housed with other inmates in a nondisruptive and nondestructive manner. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.4(a).
As we have previously observed:
MCU confinement for inmates is not imposed as punishment but is used to prevent a potentially dangerous situation within the prison. It is a housing assignment within [the Prison] where inmates are housed after a determination by the Special Classification Committee-MCU . . . that the inmate poses a substantial threat to the safety of others, of damage to or destruction of property or, of interrupting the operation of a State correctional facility.An inmate "shall" be removed from the MCU when the Committee determines that the inmate "no longer poses a substantial threat" "[o]f interrupting the secure and/or orderly operation of a State correctional facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.10(f)(3).
[Taylor v. Beyer, 265 N.J. Super. 345, 346-47 (App. Div. 1993) (citing N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.5(a)).]
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 "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) (quoting Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 580). Substantial evidence means "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961) (quoting In re Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J. Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956)). "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).
Applying these standards, we discern no reason to disturb the Department's decision to continue Sanabria's placement in the MCU. We conclude that there is substantial credible evidence in the record to support the decision and we discern no basis on which to reach a contrary conclusion. The Committee followed the requisite procedures in conducting the hearing. Further, the Committee reasonably based its decision on all the evidence in Sanabria's record, including the nature of his involvement with HAP, his record of institutional infractions, and the nature of his prior criminal conduct. "Prisons are dangerous places" and prison administrators must be given latitude to control their "volatile environment." Blyther v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 322 N.J. Super. 56, 65 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 162 N.J. 196 (1999).
Affirmed.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION