TALIB GOODSON v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2011)

State prison inmate Talib Goodson appeals from final agency action of the Department of Corrections (DOC) adjudicating him guilty of disciplinary infraction *.704  pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4–4.1(a) (“perpetrating frauds, deceptions, confidence games, riots or escape plots”).   Because the DOC complied with the minimum due-process requirements of Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975), and because there was substantial evidence in the record to support the final agency action by the DOC, we affirm.

Beginning in May 2008, the DOC began an investigation regarding a corrupt corrections officer, who was allegedly helping inmate William Burden traffic illegal drugs into South Woods State Prison where Goodson was incarcerated.   The lead investigator began to monitor Burden's telephone calls.   Calls by inmates are limited to numbers the inmates place on their PIN Assignment form.   Each inmate is required to disclose the name of the person to whom a telephone number belongs, the inmate's relationship to that person, and the person's address.   The form also requires the inmate's identification number (SBI number).

As the result of monitoring Burden's telephone calls, the investigator learned that Burden was making calls to telephone numbers listed on Goodson's PIN form and the PIN forms of three other inmates.   Burden had placed his contacts on Goodson's PIN in an attempt to make calls and traffic drugs undetected.

On Goodson's PIN form dated October 17, 2009, he listed, among others, two telephone numbers, the first of which belonged to Burden's mother, who was on Burden's visit list and whose address matched one of the locations to which inmates would send money in amounts consistent with drug purchases.   The second telephone number belonged to Tiasha Johnson, the girlfriend of former inmate Kyle Taylor.   Her name and address matched another location to which inmates would send similar amounts of money.

On November 24, 2009, inmate Burden called Taylor at the phone number listed for Johnson.   During that call Burden and Taylor confirmed that the corrupt corrections officer would smuggle drugs into the prison the following day.   When that corrections officer arrived at work on November 25, 2009, he was arrested, and sixteen individual bags of drugs were found on his person.

On December 3, 2009, a corrections officer delivered a disciplinary report to Goodson alleging a violation of prohibited act *.704.  The date of violation was October 17, 2009, the day that Goodson placed Burden's contacts on his PIN form.   Goodson pled not guilty to the charge and requested, and was granted, substitute counsel.

Hearing Officer Matthew Ruggiero conducted the disciplinary hearing two weeks after the date of the disciplinary charge.   He reviewed the preliminary incident report, a request from an earlier hearing officer for additional information, two memoranda from the investigating officer, Goodson's written statement, and Goodson's PIN forms.   In his statement, Goodson explained that he did not give his PIN to Burden and was not aware that Burden had used his PIN to make telephone calls.   He did admit that Burden gave him two telephone numbers for a woman named “Tasha.”   He claimed that he was told by Burden that “Tasha” was lonely and that Goodson could reach her at the two telephone numbers on his PIN form.   At the hearing, counsel substitute stated that Goodson was a victim of Burden's scheme and had not given Burden permission to use his PIN. Goodson did not request any witnesses and had declined an offer to obtain a statement from witnesses, including Burden.   He also declined the hearing officer's offer to pursue witnesses and declined his offer for a polygraph examination.   Substitute counsel signed the adjudication of disciplinary charge, acknowledging that it accurately reflected what took place at the disciplinary hearing.

The hearing officer, considering all of the evidence presented at the hearing, concluded that Goodson was “not credible” and gave confusing and contradictory answers.   He found that he had not given “a factual accounting of his [PIN] list especially how those listed are linked to [Goodson].”   The hearing officer also found that Goodson refused to identify the telephone numbers of the two women that Burden referred to him and could not “give a reasonable factu[al] understanding” as to who all the people on his PIN list were.   Acknowledging that the evidence in the case was primarily circumstantial, the hearing officer, nonetheless, perceived it sufficient, especially because Goodson was not credible.   Accordingly, the hearing officer imposed a sentence of 15 days detention, 365 days administrative segregation, 365 days loss of commutation time, 365 days loss of phone privileges, 30 days loss of recreation privileges, and 365 days loss of contact visits.   This sanction was based on the seriousness of the offense and the need to deter such conduct.   He found the involvement of a corrections officer did not minimize or condone Goodson's conduct.

Goodson filed an administrative appeal of the sanction and asked for leniency.   He conceded responsibility for his poor choices and asked the DOC to consider his prior disciplinary history when imposing sentence.   On December 18, 2009, John Powell, Assistant Superintendent, reviewed the appeal and affirmed the hearing officer's decision.   He reasoned, “Perpetrating a fraud or deception is a serious offense.   This type of misconduct and behavior will not be tolerated․  The sanction imposed was proportionate to the offense.”   This appeal followed.

Goodson raises the following issues for our consideration:

POINT I—[GOODSON'S] RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED WHEN THE HEARING OFFICER FAILED TO ALLOW HIM TO MARSHALL FACTS IN ORDER TO PUT ON A[ ] FAVORABLE DEFENSE AND FOUND HIM GUILTY WITHOUT SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE[;] THEREFORE, THE GUILTY FINDING MUST BE REVERSED.

POINT II—[GOODSON'S] REQUEST FOR A POLYGRAPH EXAMINATION TO HIS SUBSTITUTE COUNSEL WAS IGNORED BY HIM AND THE HEARING OFFICER, WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED AND GRANTED WHEN CONSIDERING THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTED IN THIS INSTANT MATTER AND NOT TO OFFER AND OR GRANT HIS REQUEST AMOUNTED TO A TOTAL MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.

POINT III—SINCE THE ORIGINAL HEARING OFFICER ․ DID NOT COMPLETE THE ADJUDICATION OF [GOODSON'S] CASE, AND THE REPLACEMENT HEARING OFFICER M. RUGGIERO ADJUDICATED THE MATTER WITHOUT STARTING ANEW, THEREFORE, THE GUILTY FINDING CANNOT STAND AND THEREFORE, MUST BE REVERSED.

N.J.A.C. 10A:4–9.15(a) requires that “[a] finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act.”   See also Avant, supra, 67 N.J. at 530 (requiring substantial evidence to support an inmate disciplinary sanction).   In reviewing an administrative decision to determine whether it is based upon substantial evidence, our appellate role is limited.   We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency where its findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.  Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579–80 (1980).   It is not our function to determine the credibility of witnesses or weigh the evidence once that function has been completed by the agency.   Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965).

Goodson's arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant extensive discussion in this opinion.   R. 2:11–3(e)(1)(D), (E).   The final administrative decision issued by the DOC is supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record.   See Henry, supra, 81 N.J. at 579–80.   Moreover, Goodson was provided with adequate due process protections in the processing and hearing of the charge filed against him.   See Avant, supra, 67 N.J. at 525–33.

We add only the following comments.   The record contradicts Goodson's claim that the hearing officer violated Avant by failing to allow him to marshal facts to support his defense.   Goodson declined the opportunity to call witnesses against him, declined the opportunity to call witnesses in his favor, declined to call inmate Burden, and relied on his own witness statement at the time of the hearing.   As to Goodson's claim that he was denied the opportunity for a polygraph examination, the record establishes that the hearing officer gave him that opportunity and he declined it, and his substitute counsel confirmed that he declined it.   Finally, the fact that the first hearing officer never completed the hearing is of no consequence.   The second hearing officer, Ruggiero, considered all of the evidence and decided the case based on that evidence.   As a result, there was no deprivation of Goodson's rights under Avant.

Affirmed.

PER CURIAM