Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0136-14T3
08-22-2016
JULIUS L. WILSON, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Julius L. Wilson, appellant pro se. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Marvin L. Freeman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Accurso and Suter. On appeal from New Jersey Department of Corrections. Julius L. Wilson, appellant pro se. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Marvin L. Freeman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Petitioner, Julius L. Wilson, an inmate at the New Jersey State Prison, appeals from a final agency decision of the Department of Corrections that continued his placement in the prison's Management Control Unit (MCU). We affirm.
I.
Petitioner is serving a twenty-five-year sentence of incarceration for murder, aggravated assault, conspiracy to commit robbery and possession of a firearm for an unlawful purpose. Beginning in January 2012, petitioner was assigned to the MCU.
The MCU is "a close custody unit to which an inmate may be assigned if 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." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-1.3; see also N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.5(a). "MCU confinement for inmates is not imposed as punishment but is used to prevent a potentially dangerous situation within the prison." Taylor v. Beyer, 265 N.J. Super. 345, 346-47 (App. Div. 1993).
Department of Corrections (Department) regulations detail the criteria to be considered in placing an inmate in MCU. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.4. Inmates assigned to MCU are reviewed by the Management Control Unit Review Committee (MCURC) for continued placement in MCU on a 90-day basis. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.10(a). An inmate can be released from MCU when the inmate no longer poses "an identifiable threat: i. [t]o the safety of others; ii. [o]f damage to, or destruction of property; or iii. [o]f interrupting the secure and/or orderly operation of a State correctional facility." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.6(i)(2).
In July 2014, the MCURC conducted the standard review of petitioner's continued assignment to MCU. Petitioner contended his "dual" placement both in the MCU and in administrative segregation was in conflict with the administrative code and restricted his ability to complete requirements for release from MCU. Petitioner asked to reduce the duration of his administrative segregation, which is scheduled to continue until 2023.
"Administrative segregation" is defined as "removal of an inmate from the general population of a correctional facility to a close custody unit because of one or more disciplinary infractions or other administrative considerations." N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2. It is imposed as a sanction for committing an institutional infraction. N.J.A.C. 10A:5-3.1(a). --------
The MCURC found petitioner's continued placement in MCU necessary because of his "extensive disciplinary history and influential position within a security threat group (STG)." Petitioner was initially assigned to MCU in 2007 after he
planned the brutal attack on a [c]orrection's [o]fficer which resulted in [petitioner] being found guilty of attempt to kill, assaulting any person, rioting, and participating in an activity related to an STG . . . . [His] disruptive behavior continued as [he] accumulated a significant amount of institutional infractions to include assaulting any person, fighting, throwing bodily fluid, threat[ening] with bodily harm, possession of a weapon, conduct which disrupts, engag[ing]/encourage[ing] a group demonstration, and participating in an activity related to an STG, among others.
Petitioner was noted to "have demonstrated an inability to adhere to the rules and regulations of the institution." The MCURC confirmed that petitioner had incurred a new disciplinary infraction for "making/possessing intoxicants/alcohol and possession of . . . an altered immersion coil and radio."
In addressing petitioner's contention about administrative segregation, the MCURC noted that educational programs were offered to inmates, such as petitioner, assigned to non-congregate status, but that "space [was] limited." His request for educational programs was referred to the Director of Education for review. However, the MCURC found he had "yet to complete the necessary programs required for consideration of release from the MCU." The MCURC concluded that petitioner "continue[d] to pose a threat to the safety and security of any correctional facility."
The Department upheld the MCURC in a final agency decision dated August 8, 2014, noting that petitioner's "extensive disciplinary history" warranted MCU placement. In addressing the dual-status issue, the Department rejected there was a conflict between administrative segregation and the MCU. "[A]dministrative segregation is a definitive sanction imposed for a specific, current institutional infraction. Assignment to the MCU, on the other hand, is more akin to a housing assignment . . . . Inmates are assigned to [MCU] when their behavior demonstrates a significant risk to the safe, orderly operation of a correctional facility." The decision was limited to a review of petitioner's status in the MCU. "Whether the continuance of administrative segregation is appropriate or necessary, is an issue that is better raised with the Special Administrative Segregation Review Committee (SASRC)."
Petitioner appeals the Department's decision. Petitioner raises the following points for our consideration on appeal:
POINT I
THE FINAL DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MANAGEMENT CONTROL UNIT PROGRAM AS DESCRIBED IN THE NEW JERSEY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 10A:5-2.22(a)(b).
POINT II
THE AGENCY DECISION TO HOUSE APPELLANT TO MULTIPLE STATUS SUCH AS M.C.U. AND AD-SEG VIOLATE[D] HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE MANAGEMENT CONTROL UNIT RELEASE PROGRAM.
POINT III
APPELLANT[']S SIMULTANEOUS PLACEMENT IN MANAGEMENT CONTROL UNIT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SEGREGATION CREATES AN UNDUE HARDSHIP WHEN APPELLANT IS UNABLE TO MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA FOR RELEASE OF MANAGEMENT CONTROL UNIT.
We affirm the Department's decision.
II.
We will not interfere with an agency's final decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). The Legislature has provided the Commissioner of the Department with "broad discretionary power" in matters involving the administration of a prison facility. Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 576, 583 (App. Div. 1999); see also N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6(g); Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 547-48, 99 S. Ct. 1861, 1878-79, 60 L. Ed. 2d 447, 474 (1979) ("Prison administrators . . . should be accorded wide-ranging deference in the adoption and execution of policies and practices that in their judgment are needed to preserve internal order and discipline and to maintain institutional security.") Classification and transfer of State prisoners is placed within the sole discretion of the Commissioner of the Department. N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.1 to -91.3; see also Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 29-30 (App. Div. 2001).
We find no error in the Department's decision to continue petitioner's placement in MCU. There was substantial credible evidence to do so. Petitioner has an extensive disciplinary history including new disciplinary infractions that were incurred shortly before the MCURC review hearing. He maintained an influential position within a security threat group which posed a continuing threat to the safety and security of the facility. In 2007, he planned an attack on a correction's officer. He accumulated significant institutional infractions for assault and fighting. He had not yet completed courses required for consideration of release from MCU.
There is no due process violation by petitioner's continued assignment to MCU. Ample "process" was afforded petitioner through the Department's regulations, which accorded him notice, the assistance of an inmate paralegal, an opportunity to be heard and then the ability to appeal the MCURC's decision, all in keeping with appropriate process. See N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.6(b), -(c), -(i); N.J.A.C. 10A:5-2.7.
Petitioner's administrative segregation sanction is not part of this appeal. That sanction has a separate review process. See N.J.A.C. 10A:5-3.2 (providing for a bimonthly review of inmates assigned to the administrative close supervision unit). Although petitioner's lack of "congregate" status arising from administrative close supervision may pose some challenge to him in completing courses because space is limited, educational programs are available to inmates assigned to administrative segregation, such as petitioner, "to the extent possible in accordance with security considerations, resources, budgetary constraints and . . . internal management procedures." N.J.A.C. 10A:5-3.14. He acknowledges having not completed the requirements needed for consideration of release from MCU. To the extent that conditions of prison confinement "are restrictive and even harsh, they are part of the penalty that criminal offenders pay for their offenses against society." Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347, 101 S. Ct. 2392, 2399, 69 L. Ed. 2d 59, 69 (1981).
We conclude that defendant's further arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION