JOHN PRITCHETT v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2013)

Appellant John Pritchett, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) in Trenton, appeals from the March 15, 2012 final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) finding him guilty of violating *.803/*.216,  attempted distribution or sale of prohibited substances such as drugs, intoxicants, or related paraphernalia;  two counts of *.306,  conduct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility;  *803/*.215, attempting to possess narcotics with intent to distribute;  and *.803/751, attempting to bribe an officer.   Pritchett contends he was denied due process because he was not granted the opportunity to confront the staff members he allegedly bribed and the final decision was not based on sufficient credible evidence in the record or adequately explained.   Having considered Pritchett's arguments in light of the record, we affirm.

The charges involved in this case stem from an investigation conducted by the NJSP Special Investigation Division (SID), which determined that Pritchett coordinated a conspiracy with other inmates, civilians, and a corrections officer to smuggle cell phones, narcotics, and other contraband into the prison.   The DOC hearing officer provided Pritchett with a summary of the SID report that set forth the basis for the charges.¹  The hearing officer's summary stated:

Inmate Pritchett ․ had a cellular phone seized from a search conducted on November 30, 2009.   In 2010 John Doe # 1 ² agreed in an interview that a conspiracy to have contraband smuggled into [NJSP] involved inmate Pritchett.   Pritchett was enlisted by another inmate to aid in acquiring narcotics.   Pritchett also enlisted several citizens as well as inmates to assist in the conspiracy.   One individual being a NJ DOC sworn officer.   Pritchett would involve himself in phone calls where he would request a third party call to several phone numbers.   In the calls Pritchett speaks to males and females in an effort to obtain narcotics to be smuggled into [NJSP]. John Doe # 2 confirmed the content of the phone calls.

The summary continued:

John Doe # 3 stated he/she was to hold drugs until he/she received a phone call.   John Doe # 3 was to meet persons for the purpose of obtaining contraband including heroin, marijuana, and cellular phones.   John Doe # 3 received monies through [NJSP] remits and money orders, which would then be forwarded to another party.

John Doe # 4 also was solicited to purchase cellular phones and other items which would be provided to [NJSP] staff to be brought into the prison as instructed by inmate Pritchett.

Confidential informants identified Pritchett and his involvement in trafficking drugs through NJ DOC staff member.

Pritchett was served with a copy of the charges and was granted the assistance of counsel substitute.   He declined the offer to call witnesses on his behalf, but did submit a written statement in his defense.   He was also permitted to provide questions in writing to cross-examine SID investigator Dolce, who provided written responses for the hearing officer's consideration.   However, the investigator could not reveal the names of the confidential informants to Pritchett because “[t]o disclose that info[rmation] would put them in peril.”   To protect the safety of the civilian witnesses, the hearing officer denied Pritchett's request to confront them at the hearing.

The hearing officer found Pritchett guilty of violating *803/*216,³ two counts of *306, *803/*215, and *803/751.   The hearing officer sanctioned Pritchett on the *803/*216 charge with 365 days' loss of commutation credit, 365 days' administrative segregation, and referral to the closed custody unit.   On the first *306 charge, Pritchett was sanctioned to 365 days' administrative segregation and 365 days' loss of phone privileges.   The hearing officer “combine[d]” the second *306 charge into the first one and no additional sanction was imposed.   On the *803/*215 charge, the hearing officer sanctioned Pritchett with fifteen days' detention, 365 days' administrative segregation, and 365 days' loss of commutation time.   Finally, Pritchett was sanctioned with fifteen days' detention, 365 days' loss of commutation credit and 365 days' administrative segregation on the *803/*.751 charge.

On April 3, 2012, NJSP's Assistant Superintendent, Suzanne Lawrence, upheld the hearing officer's decision, explaining:

My review of this issue reveals that there was compliance with the New Jersey Administrative Code on inmate discipline, which prescribes procedural safeguards.   The claim of misinterpretation of the facts is unfounded.   There is no violation of standards.   The decision of the Hearing Officer and the sanction rendered is appropriate.

Pritchett received the decision the next day.

On appeal, Pritchett raises the following arguments:

POINT I

THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER VIOLATES APPELLANT'S RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE VACATED.

(a) The decision of the Hearing Officer[ ] should be vacated because the decision was not based upon substantial credible evidence.

(b) The Hearing Officer's refusal to grant witnesses and/or confrontation violated appellant's Due Process Right to a fair and impartial hearing.

POINT II

THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION FAILED TO ARTICULATE FACTS ESTABLISHING APPELLANT'S GUILT

[ (a) ] It has well been established that there must be specific findings set forth by Hearing Officer's in the adjudication report supporting reasons for his opinion.

The scope of our review of an agency decision is limited.  “An appellate court ordinarily will reverse the decision of an administrative agency only when the agency's decision is ‘arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or [ ] is 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 v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579–80 (1980)).  “ ‘Substantial evidence’ means ‘such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ ”  Figueroa v. Dep't. of Corr., 414 N.J.Super. 186, 192 (App.Div.2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).

Although prison disciplinary hearings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full spectrum of rights due to a criminal defendant does not apply, see Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975), when reviewing a determination of the DOC in a matter involving prisoner discipline, we consider not only whether there is substantial evidence that the inmate committed the prohibited act, but also whether, in making its decision the DOC followed regulations adopted to afford inmates procedural due process.   See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194–196 (1995).

Having considered the record in light of the foregoing principles, we conclude that sufficient credible evidence in the record supports the DOC's determination that Pritchett was guilty of violating each of the prison rules involved here.   The SID report detailed the basis for each of the charges.   Pritchett was found with a cell phone, which is prohibited.   Confidential informants told SID that Pritchett had enlisted inmates, civilians, and a corrections officer to smuggle drugs and phones into NJSP. The informants provided information as to how the illegal operation worked and how the participants were paid.   Contrary to Pritchett's contention that the hearing officer did not explain the reasons for his findings of guilt, the hearing officer adjudications on each offense clearly set forth that he relied upon the SID investigation report, which was summarized for Pritchett.

Pritchett complains that he was not permitted to learn the identities of, or confront, the civilian staff members and the corrections officer who provided information to the SID. This argument lacks merit.  N.J.A.C. 10A:4–9.14(b) 6 provides that a hearing officer may refuse confrontation and cross-examination when there is “[a] request to call a witness who is a confidential informant.”

That was plainly the case here.   The safety of the civilian staff members and the corrections officer who provided information concerning Pritchett, other inmates, and individuals still in the community, would plainly be jeopardized if their identities were revealed.   Under those circumstances, we discern no basis for disturbing the hearing officer's determination to deny Pritchett's request to confront these individuals.

Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. Pritchett was originally charged on October 8, 2010 and found guilty of violating prison rules in connection with the incidents involved here.   He appealed that determination.   On February 7, 2012, we granted DOC's motion to remand the matter for additional administrative proceedings.   We retained jurisdiction.   On the remand, DOC conducted a new hearing on the disciplinary charges and, on March 15, 2012, issued a new decision, which is the subject of this appeal..  FN1. Pritchett was originally charged on October 8, 2010 and found guilty of violating prison rules in connection with the incidents involved here.   He appealed that determination.   On February 7, 2012, we granted DOC's motion to remand the matter for additional administrative proceedings.   We retained jurisdiction.   On the remand, DOC conducted a new hearing on the disciplinary charges and, on March 15, 2012, issued a new decision, which is the subject of this appeal.

FN2. The hearing officer used “the name[ ] ‘John Doe’ to refer to individuals involved in the investigation.”   He explained that “[t]he names of the individuals cannot be divulged due to the sensitive, confidential information contained in the report that may endanger the safety of those involved.”.  FN2. The hearing officer used “the name[ ] ‘John Doe’ to refer to individuals involved in the investigation.”   He explained that “[t]he names of the individuals cannot be divulged due to the sensitive, confidential information contained in the report that may endanger the safety of those involved.”

FN3. Pritchett was originally charged with *216, distribution of prohibited substances.   However, the hearing officer modified this charge to *803/*216, attempted distribution of prohibited substances, because narcotics were not actually seized from Pritchett..  FN3. Pritchett was originally charged with *216, distribution of prohibited substances.   However, the hearing officer modified this charge to *803/*216, attempted distribution of prohibited substances, because narcotics were not actually seized from Pritchett.

PER CURIAM