February 19, 2009
EXECUTIVE MINISTER (EM) OF JESUS CHRIST'S PRISONERS' PROXY COMMITTEE (PPC) OF UNITED AGAINST RACISM, DISCRIMINATION, AND SOCIAL INJUSTICE (UARDSI), DR. MAALIK ABDUL-ALIIM, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
SOUTH WOODS STATE PRISON (SWSP), FORMER AND PRESENT ADMINISTRATORS AND ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATORS OF SWSP, RESPECTIVELY W. STANLEY NUNN AND KATHRYN MACFARLAND AND KAREN BALICKI, PSYCHIATRY DEPARTMENT OF SWSP AND PSYCHIATRISTS, DR. DICASAMIRRO, DR. KALDANY, DR. UHRICH, AND DR. BURNS OR UNKNOWN NAMED FEMALE PSYCHIATRIST, ALL SAID PSYCHIATRISTS ARE/WERE FROM AND ASSIGNED TO SWSP, DR. LIEBERMAN, A PSYCHIATRIST FROM AND ASSIGNED TO TRENTON STATE PRISON (TSP), AND SWSP PRISON GUARDS, MALDONALDO AND RILEY, AND/OR OTHERS, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Cumberland County, L-808-04.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
Submitted January 27, 2009
Before Judges Fuentes and Chambers.
Plaintiff, Dr. Maalik Abdul-Aliim, a prisoner in the Northern State Prison, appeals from the order of April 27, 2007, entered by the Law Division in this case. Due to numerous deficiencies in the record before us, we are compelled to dismiss this appeal.
The order on appeal denies plaintiff's motions of March 27, 2007, but does not identify the specific relief that was denied; it merely references specified paragraphs in the motion papers.
Those motion papers are not in the record before us. We, thus, cannot ascertain the relief denied by the court.
We note that plaintiff states in his appellate argument that among the relief he sought in the motions was reinstatement of this civil litigation and a temporary restraining order.
However, the record is devoid of the basis for these requests.
We also do not know what relief he wanted in the temporary restraining order. We do not have a copy of the complaint or any other specific information about the claims being made in this case. We have not been provided with the decision from the court below, nor has plaintiff provided a cogent explanation as to why he is entitled to the relief sought. All of these deficiencies are in violation of well established rules governing appellate practice. See R. 2:5-4 (record on appeal); R. 2:6-1 (content of appendix); and R. 2:6-2 (contents of brief).
In sum, the appellate record does not contain sufficient information or documentation to allow us to ascertain whether or not the case was properly dismissed or to evaluate any other aspect of the motions. This appeal is dismissed pursuant to R. 2:9-9.*fn1