ALONZO JENKINS v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2013)

Appellant Alonzo Jenkins appeals from the March 28, 2012 final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request for a rule exemption to allow him to gain full minimum custody ¹ status.   We remand to allow the DOC to explain its reasons for the denial.

Jenkins is serving a sentence of forty-five years with a fifteen-year mandatory minimum imposed in 1997 for the crime of robbery, N.J.S.A. 2C:15–1.   He was previously convicted of arson in 1985.   On June 30, 2011, Jenkins submitted a “Request for Rule Exemption” (RRE) form seeking to be afforded full minimum custody in spite of his prior arson conviction.   He stated that he needed that reduced custody status in order to be eligible for rehabilitation programs and job training.   On December 9, 2011, a DOC classification officer wrote Jenkins that he was “not eligible for a reduction of custody further than Gang Minimum” due to his prior arson conviction, citing N.J.A.C. 10A:9–4.8(d).  The officer stated “I will consider this matter closed.”   On March 9, 2012, Jenkins resubmitted the same RRE form.   The March 28, 2012 DOC denial reads, “I/M REQ FOR A RUL[E] EXEM[PT]ION DENIED CURRENT STATUS APPROPRIATE[.]”

On appeal, Jenkins claims discriminatory treatment violating his constitutional rights:

POINT I:  THE PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT['S] FIFTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, TO RECEIVE PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS AND EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER LAW WERE VIOLATED, WHEN THE INSTITUTIONAL CLASSIFICATION COMMITTEE DECISION DENYING APPELLANT['S] REQUEST FOR RULE EXEMPTIONS.

Our scope of review is limited, and Jenkins' contentions must be analyzed in accordance with that standard.  In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011);  Moore v. Dep't of Corr., 335 N.J.Super. 103, 110 (App.Div.2000).   “In order to reverse an agency's judgment, an appellate court must find the agency's decision to be ‘arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or ․ not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole.’ ”   Stallworth, supra, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579–80 (1980)).

The administrative code precludes an inmate from obtaining full minimum status if he has a prior arson conviction.  N.J.A.C. 10A:9–4.8(a) and (d).  Jenkins sought an exemption from this rule.  N.J.A.C. 10A:1–2.7(b).

The Commissioner may exempt a correctional facility ․ from adherence to a rule or may relax certain requirements of a rule for good cause shown in a particular situation or in instances when strict compliance with a rule or all of its requirements would result in:

1.  An undue hardship, unfairness or injustice;

2.  An inability to meet a therapeutic, rehabilitative or medical need;

3.  A security risk or imminent peril to the overall management, safe or orderly operation of a correctional facility, community program or operational unit;

4.  An inability to utilize existing technology or apply technological innovations in order to meet penological objectives;

5.  An inability to meet an operational need to ensure management effectiveness and efficiency;  or

6.  An inability to reasonably meet a time period requirement.

[N.J.A.C. 10A:1–2.4(c).]

We cannot determine on what basis the DOC denied Jenkins' RRE from the few words in the denial.

As we said in the context of a disciplinary hearing:

We recognize the deference to which a decision of an administrative agency is entitled, and we do not require the same level of detail in prison disciplinary decisions as in some other matters.  Blackwell v. Dep't. of Corr., [348 N.J.Super. 117, 123] (App.Div.2002).   Our appellate obligation, however, “ ‘requires far more than a perfunctory review.’   We are constrained to engage in a ‘careful and principled consideration of the agency record and findings.’ ”  Williams v. Dep't. of Corr., [330 N.J.Super. 197, 203–04] (App.Div.2000) (quoting Mayflower Sec. v. Bureau of Sec., [64 N.J. 85, 93] (1973)).

[Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 375 N.J.Super. 347, 353 (App.Div.2005).]

Jenkins is entitled to appellate review of a final agency action.   We cannot conduct such a review without individualized reasons for the denial.   We express no opinion as to the strength of Jenkins' application.

Remanded for sixty days to allow the DOC to provide a statement of reasons for its action.   We retain jurisdiction.

FOOTNOTES

FN1. The DOC has six categories of custody status:  close custody, maximum custody, medium custody, gang minimum custody, full minimum custody, and community custody.  N.J.A.C. 10A:9–4.3(a–f)..  FN1. The DOC has six categories of custody status:  close custody, maximum custody, medium custody, gang minimum custody, full minimum custody, and community custody.  N.J.A.C. 10A:9–4.3(a–f).

PER CURIAM