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.

Kevin Jackson v. Department of Corrections

July 26, 2012

KEVIN JACKSON, APPELLANT,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, RESPONDENT.



On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Per curiam.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

Submitted July 3, 2012

Before Judges Payne and Messano.

Kevin Jackson appeals from the November 17, 2008 and August 18, 2011 decisions of the Department of Corrections (DOC) to impose disciplinary sanctions on him for committing prohibited act *.009, the misuse, possession, distribution, sale or intent to distribute or sell, an electronic communication device, equipment or peripheral that is capable of transmitting, receiving or storing data and/or electronically transmitting a message, image or data that is not authorized for use or retention, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). On appeal, he raises the following arguments:

POINT I

RESPONDENT'S AGREEMENT THAT A GROSS VIOLATION WAS IN PLACE AND A RE-HEARING IS IN ORDER MUST BE DENIED BECAUSE THE MERITORIOUS LEGAL CLAIMS ARTICULATED HEREIN WARRANTS FOR THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO CONTINUE TO HOLD CONFIDENCE IN THE JURISPRUDENCE SYSTEM TO ADDRESS THE DOC ONGOING ILLEGAL POLICY, REGULATION AND PROCEDURE AT WILL THAT'S CONTRARY TO WELL ESTABLISHED ADMINISTRATIVE LAW PURSUANT TO N.J.A.C. 10A: ET SEQ., AS WELL IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS/EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS.

POINT II

RESPONDENT CREATED THIS SITUATION THAT TRIGGERED THE LITIGATION AT HAND AND THEREFORE, PURSUANT TO N.J.A.C. 10A:3-9.13, RESPONDENT MUST BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE FINANCIAL COST ENTAILED IN THIS LITIGATION AT BAR.

POINT III

SOP 315 DOES NOT ARTICULATE DOC OFFICE EQUIPMENT DISTINCT FROM NAACP NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION PURCHASE EQUIPMENT WITH THEIR OWN FUNDS. THUS, SAID *.009 ADMIN. CHARGE AND SANCTION IS ILLEGAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONTRARY TO APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS/EQUAL PROTECTION RIGHTS OF THE 14TH AMEND. SEE ALSO, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a).

POINT IV

CUSTODY/ADMISTRATION FAIL TO PROVIDE APPELLANT NOTICE PURSUANT TO SOP 315 OF AN ALLEGED PROHIBITED USE OF EQUIPMENT USAGE WITHOUT AN ALLEGED OFFICER'S PERMISSION TO USE THE/OR ANY NON-PROFIT GROUP IN PRISON, OWN PURCHASE ...


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.