Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hanley v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections

November 5, 2009

THOMAS HANLEY, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.



On appeal from a Final Decision of the Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 20, 2009

Before Judges Parrillo and Lihotz.

In this prison disciplinary appeal, appellant, Thomas Hanley, who is incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison in Rahway, appeals from the Department of Corrections' (DOC) adjudication of guilt of prohibited act *.004, fighting with fellow inmate and cellmate Dennis Clifford, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). A hearing officer reviewed the evidence, including appellant's proffer of self-defense, and entered a guilty adjudication. She imposed a sanction of ten days detention, ninety-five days administrative segregation, suspended for sixty days because Clifford started the fight, ninety-five days loss of commutation credit, and fifteen days loss of recreation privileges. After review by the Assistant Superintendent, the adjudication of guilt was upheld but the loss of commutation credit and recreation privileges was suspended for sixty days, such that if Hanley remained charge free during that sixty-day period, the sanction would be dropped.

On appeal, Hanley argues the determination was against the weight of the evidence he acted in self-defense and he was denied due process. After consideration of these arguments, in light of the record and the applicable law, we affirm.

Sergeant Simpkins and Senior Corrections Officer (SCO) Dixon first observed Hanley and Clifford seated at the same table in the prison dining hall. Suddenly, the two inmates stood up, began shouting and "hitting each other." A "Code 33" was called. Both inmates stopped when ordered and were separated. Responding corrections officers Sergeant Baez, Lieutenant Cunningham and SCO Coburn witnessed the altercation and filed separate reports. Simpkins' report noted that after the two inmates were separated "Clifford ran toward I/M Hanley again swing[ing] his arms... but did not make contact." Seconds later, the two resumed fighting. Coburn's report corroborated these facts stating Clifford appeared to be the aggressor. In the course of his disciplinary hearing, Clifford admitted he started the fight.

In addition to reviewing the reports filed by the prison authorities after the incident, the hearing officer reviewed the video of the events. She stated the video shows a physical altercation with both Hanley and Clifford throwing punches. Thereafter, "Hanley appears to be trying to stay away from Clifford & Clifford continues to come at Hanley and continue the fight." On this record, the hearing officer concluded Hanley "did fight back" and was adjudicated guilty of the charged infraction.

The scope of our review is limited. An adjudication of an infraction must be supported by substantial credible evidence. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 195 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 222 (1995). See also N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). A Department of Corrections' decision on prisoner disciplinary matters will be disturbed only upon a finding that its ruling is "arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record[.]" In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 657 (1999) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 580 (1980)). Substantial evidence is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." In re Application of Hackensack Water Co., 41 N.J. Super. 408, 418 (App. Div. 1956).

Here, Hanley admitted he and Clifford were fighting but insists he acted in self-defense. Because the corrections officers' reports and the hearing officer's assessment of the videotape revealed Clifford was the aggressor, Hanley concludes his defense is "irrefutable." Therefore, the hearing officer's decision was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of State due process and fairness guarantees. We reject Hanley's arguments.

"[A] victim of a physical attack will instinctively respond to protect his/her person from harm," and "[DOC's] regulations do not foreclose an inmate from raising the defense of self-defense in a prison disciplinary hearing." DeCamp v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 386 N.J. Super. 631, 639 (App. Div. 2006). Specifically, the DOC has adopted regulation N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.13(f), which recognizes a claim of self-defense in the context of a prison disciplinary proceeding involving the use of force among inmates. A claim of self-defense may be demonstrated when the following conditions have been met:

1. The inmate was not the initial aggressor;

2. The inmate did not provoke the attacker;

3. The use of force was not by mutual ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.