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.

Nieves v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections

November 10, 2010

DAVID NIEVES, APPELLANT,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted October 26, 2010

Before Judges Skillman and Espinosa.

Inmate David Nieves appeals from the denial of his personal property claims. We affirm.

Nieves was transferred from Northern State Prison (NSP) to New Jersey State Prison (NJSP) in November 2008. In mid-December 2008, he submitted a claim for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property, in which he claimed that he was missing a television and a radio, valued collectively at $190 and a fan, a watch and three storage bins, valued collectively at $85. Nieves's claim regarding the lost property was later forwarded to NSP. NSP determined that the claim was invalid because there was no proof of negligence on the part of NSP staff. The disposition sheet stated that the Claims Committee also relied upon a custody report and inmate inventory sheet in reaching its determination. Nieves did not file an administrative appeal from this decision.

On January 11, 2009, Nieves acknowledged receipt of the television on an Inmate Inventory Sheet. Two days later, he submitted a claim in which he stated that his television was damaged; that it was delivered to him with sound and no picture and that it had someone else's name and number on it. NJSP staff provided a written response regarding the damaged television claim, stating that all appliances are checked when received and that Nieves's television was operational when inspected on January 11, 2009. In his appeal from the final decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC), Nieves states that he "evidently overlooked" these facts when he confirmed receipt of the television in the mailroom.

In the Appeal Decision, the Administrator stated that, based upon information received from the Property Supervisor, Nieves was called to the property room, identified the property and that his name and number were engraved on the property and no additional names or numbers were noted. In addition, the Administrator stated, "the TV was tested, functional and belonged to [Nieves]."

Even in a disciplinary proceeding, an inmate is not entitled to the full panoply of rights as is a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2 identifies the factors to be considered before a claim such as those filed here are approved or disapproved:

1. Whether the investigation revealed any neglect by the correctional facility;

2. Whether care was exercised by facility staff preventing property loss, damage or destruction;

3. Whether the inmate exercised care in preventing property loss, damage or destruction;

4. Whether it has been proven that the inmate was authorized to have and did, in fact, possess the item(s) named in the claim;

5. Whether sufficient information has been supplied by the inmate, including proper receipts, ...


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.