Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-2486-14T2
07-22-2016
GREGORY RAVENELL, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Gregory Ravenell, appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam Robert Gibbons, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Fuentes and Koblitz. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Gregory Ravenell, appellant pro se. Christopher S. Porrino, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam Robert Gibbons, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Gregory Ravenell, an inmate at the New Jersey State Prison in Trenton, appeals from the January 9, 2015 final administrative decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to continue his placement in involuntary protective custody because the initial conditions that resulted in his placement in 2007 had not changed. Ravenell is serving a thirty-year mandatory minimum sentence for murder, N.J.S.A. 2C:11-3, that expires on January 7, 2022. We reverse and remand for another hearing.
The DOC hearing officer relied on a November 11, 2006 "confidential report," which recommended "that inmate Ravenell remain in VPC [voluntary protective custody] pending transfer to another appropriate correctional institution, at which time inmate Ravenell may be returned to General Population." She also relied on a December 9, 2014 brief one-paragraph memorandum from the Special Investigations Division, which states, "Ravenell has maintained a leadership role within the Crips [gang] . . . . As the Bloods are the predominant gang within the prison system, it is recommended that Ravenell remain housed in protective custody to assure his safety and the overall safety and security of the prison system." The memorandum also states, "Ravenell has been released into the general population at several state prisons and in each instance requests protection related to threats or assault attempts on his person."
We do not reveal the details of this report to preserve its confidentiality. We have reviewed its brief contents carefully. --------
The hearing officer wrote on the "protective custody hearing adjudication" form on the space provided for other comments: "Refer to CC [Commissioner of Corrections] for possible consideration of possible transfer to another GP [general population] setting."
Ravenell raises the following issue on appeal:
POINT I: THE AGENCY DECISION MUST BE REVERSED AS THERE IS INSUFFICIENT CREDIBLE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE FINDING.
We may reverse an administrative agency's decision only "if it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable." In re Proposed Quest Acad. Charter Sch., 216 N.J. 370, 385 (2013); see White v. Fauver, 219 N.J. Super. 170, 180 (App. Div.) (reviewing an administrative decision regarding housing in protective custody under an arbitrary or capricious standard), modified on other grounds sub nom. Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239 (1987). Our courts "have not been satisfied with enforcement of naked constitutional right, but have gone further to strike down arbitrary action and administrative abuse and to insure procedural fairness in the administrative process." N.J. State Parole Bd. v. Byrne, 93 N.J. 192, 207 (1983) (quoting Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 520 (1975)).
The New Jersey Administrative Code requires:
In all cases of inmate voluntary and involuntary placement in Prehearing
Protective Custody, the Administrator or designee shall gather facts, information and available documentation to support or reject the placement and shall order such additional investigation as is deemed necessary for a clear understanding of the case. Prehearing Protective Custody may consist of confinement to the inmate's cell or placement into a secure Close Custody Unit.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:5-5.1(c).]
An inmate who has been placed in Protective Custody involuntarily may be released by the Administrator or designee, upon recommendation by the I.C.C. [Institutional Classification Committee] when they are satisfied that the conditions forming the basis for the inmate's placement in Protective Custody have abated or no longer exist and there is no known threat to the safe, secure or orderly operation of the correctional facility.
[N.J.A.C. 10A:5-5.5(b).]
Ravenell does not complain that the hearing procedures set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:5-5.2 were not followed. Nor does he argue he was not provided an annual review hearing. See N.J.A.C. 10A:5-5.4 (requiring annual reviews of each inmate in protective custody). Rather, Ravenell claims the decision to keep him in involuntary protective custody was not based on credible evidence because no documents in the record support the assertion, which he denies, that Ravenell was placed in the general population in several prisons and always sought protective custody. We also find no support in the record for this assertion, which was relied on by the hearing officer to make her decision.
To the contrary, documentation supports Ravenell's continuing desire for housing in the general population since 2011. At least six times he submitted a written request to be transferred to general population. We therefore reverse and remand for another protective custody review hearing where documentation of Ravenell's alleged multiple requests for placement in protective custody shall be reviewed before any reliance is placed on the assertion that he has made such requests.
Reversed and remanded. 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