Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1762-11T1
05-03-2013
STEVEN GROHS, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Steven Grohs, appellant pro se. Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Justin L. Conforti, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Before Judges Grall and Simonelli.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Steven Grohs, appellant pro se.
Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Justin L. Conforti, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Steven Grohs (Grohs) appeals from the May 26, 2011 final agency decision of respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), which denied his claim for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
Grohs was an inmate at South Woods State Prison (SWSP). He was transferred to the Adult Diagnostic Treatment Center (ADTC) in Avenel. Approximately three weeks after the transfer, SWSP shipped Grohs personal property to the ADTC. When Grohs opened his packages, he discovered that his television was damaged and eighteen items of personal property were missing. Grohs advised the Administrator of SWSP about the damaged television and missing property, and then submitted a claim for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property along with account statements showing he had purchased the items from the prison commissary.
Following an investigation, on May 26, 2011, Associate Administrator John Powell denied Grohs's claim. Powell concluded that Grohs was responsible for his personal property and left it unsecured at his own risk; Grohs failed to demonstrate that SWSP was negligent in handling or storing his property; Grohs failed to include the inventory slips he signed when he received his property; and once Grohs signed for and accepted his property, the claim became void. Referencing provisions of the Inmate Handbook, Powell determined that Grohs failed to submit the claim within fifteen days, and failed to provide documentation of ownership and commissary receipts no older than thirty days for perishable items and sixty days for non-perishable items; and many of the commissary receipts Grohs supplied were the same receipts he had supplied for a previous claim. This appeal followed.
The DOC did not provide the Inmate Handbook on appeal.
On appeal, Grohs argues that the DOC erred by denying his claim. In opposition, the DOC argues that the appeal should be dismissed for Grohs's failure to exhaust his administrative remedies.
N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 governs the procedures for determining an inmate's claims for reimbursement for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property. The inmate must submit a claim form to the Administrator or designee, who then submits the claim form to the director of custody operations or designee for an investigation and preparation of a report. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(a) and (b). Upon completion of the investigation, the inmate's claim form and a copy of the investigative report is submitted to the business manager of the correctional facility for review. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(c). The business manager reviews the inmate's claim form and investigative report, completes a certification of inmate claim form "indicating a recommendation to approve or deny the claim with substantiating reasons[,]" and submits all three documents to "the Administrator for review and recommendation for approval or denial." N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(d) and (e).
N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f) provides that "[c]laims that are denied by the Administrator shall not be processed any further." Thus, it does not appear that N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 permits additional administrative review from the denial of a claim for reimbursement for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property. However, the DOC argues that the Inmate Remedy System provides for an administrative appeal to the Administrator, see N.J.A.C. 10A:1-4.1 to -4.9, and the Administrator's decision constitutes a final agency decision from which an appeal may be taken. N.J.A.C. 10A:1-4.6(d).
Because it was not clear that Grohs could appeal from the Administrator's denial of his claim for reimbursement for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property, we reverse and remand this matter to the Administrator consider Grohs's appeal.
Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION