Ashley Georges v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: March 12, 2024
• Docket: A-1813-21
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1813-21

ASHLEY GEORGES,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. ___________________________

Submitted March 4, 2024 – Decided March 12, 2024

Before Judges Sabatino and Mawla.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Ashely Georges, appellant pro se.

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Appellant Ashley Georges appeals from a January 14, 2022 final agency

decision by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC), denying his

request to be returned to his former housing. We affirm.

Appellant is presently incarcerated at South Woods State Prison (SWSP).

He was transferred there from East Jersey State Prison (EJSP) in October 2022.

This appeal concerns his housing while he was at EJSP.

On October 21, 2021, appellant and three other inmates were being

transported from EJSP to Northern State Prison (NSP) for a medical

appointment. Prior to leaving EJSP, the inmates were given the opportunity to

use the restroom. While awaiting intake at NSP, appellant stated, "I will just

piss in the back of the van," and urinated in the back compartment of the van,

including on the back doors. The officers transporting appellant reported "this

happened in full view of the other [inmates] and . . . vehicle cameras."

As a result, appellant was charged with: *.012, throwing bodily fluid at

any person, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(x); *.306, conduct which disrupts or

interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility,

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(xix); *.053, indecent exposure, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-

4.1(a)(1)(vi); and .152, destroying, altering, or damaging government property,

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(4)(i). A hearing officer dismissed the .152, *.306, and

A-1813-21 2 *.053 charges, and reduced the original *.012 charge to an on-the-spot-

correction for .651, being unsanitary, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(5)(xiii). Appellant

did not appeal from the adjudication.

Prior to the adjudication, appellant was placed in the Close Custody Unit

(CCU) for a day. Following his release from the CCU, he submitted an inmate

inquiry form claiming he was released from CCU because the prison determined

he should not have been placed there. He was then placed in a different wing

because another prisoner was put in his former cell. Appellant complained the

adjudicated charges were "bogus" and that he should never have been moved

from his former wing where he had resided for approximately seven years.

The DOC responded: "Housing is at the discretion of [the DOC] and EJSP

Administration. You will need to re-apply for your previous housing."

Appellant submitted inquiry forms in November and December 2021,

requesting a move back to his previous living quarters. He explained he was

enrolled in college and needed to return to a single cell again to study and having

a cellmate was distracting. The DOC reiterated appellant should "apply through

the regular wing move process."

Appellant submitted four more inquiry forms over the course of December

2021 and January 2022. He claimed prison officials were conspiring "to punish

A-1813-21 3 [him] for filing various grievances and lawsuits for the conditions of [his]

confinement, inadequate law library, [and] delay of medical treatment." He

reiterated he was "unjustifiably removed from [his] single cell due to falsified

charges that were dismissed for lack of evidence." Appellant claimed he was

moved to a "congregated area," exposing him to COVID-19. He further

expressed concerns about "changes in [his] behavior due to [his] sudden

placement" in the new unit and detailed that being in a single cell helped his

mental health, and he had earned this privilege.

The DOC responded appellant's housing assignment was not punitive

because he was put in a general population unit. Moreover, "[h]ousing unit

assignments are made on a case[-]by[-]case basis in accordance with the

provisions set forth in [N.J.A.C.] 10A [and] . . . are based on a variety of

criteria." The DOC stated appellant's housing assignment was made after a

consideration of the criterion in the regulations and would remain in force.

Appellant filed this appeal in February 2022. He was subsequently

transferred to SWSP in October 2022.

I.

Appellant argues the DOC violated his due process rights when he was

detained before the disciplinary hearing. He claims there was no basis for the

A-1813-21 4 disciplinary charges because he was "denied the use of the bathroom[,] resulting

in him urinating on himself." Further, after the initial hearing, the hearing

officer improperly failed to give him twenty-four hours' notice of the on-the-

spot-correction for being unsanitary and did not provide him with a hearing on

that charge, as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.16(b).

Appellant reiterates the housing change and placement in the general

population during a "raging pandemic" was completely punitive. He claims

another inmate was issued a disciplinary infraction during the same time, and

that inmate was provided a hearing before he was moved. Moreover, that inmate

was moved back to his original housing after a month. Appellant claims he was

treated differently because he "has a history of writing grievances and filing

law[]suits."

Our role in reviewing a final decision by the DOC is limited. Figueroa v.

N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). The decision

must not be disturbed on appeal unless it was "arbitrary, capricious or

unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the reco rd

as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). Indeed,

"[w]ide discretion is afforded to administrative decisions because of an agency's

A-1813-21 5 specialized knowledge." In re Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J.

357, 390 (2020).

At the outset, we do not address the arguments relating to the nature of

the disciplinary charges, the disciplinary proceeding itself, or its outcome

because, as we noted, appellant did not file an administrative appeal from the

disciplinary adjudication. See R. 2:2-3(a)(2).

With regards to appellant's arguments relating to his housing, our Supreme

Court has stated "prisoners do not have a 'liberty interest' under the due process

clause in 'remaining free from transfer to more restricted facilities.'" Request to

Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. at 382 (quoting Szemple v. Dep't of Corr.,

384 N.J. Super. 245, 249 (App. Div. 2006)). In Shabazz v. Department of

Corrections, we held an inmate transferred from a halfway house to jail "did not

have a constitutionally protected interest in his initial placement." 385 N.J.

Super. 117, 124 (App. Div. 2006). "In addition, under State law, the

Commissioner of the [DOC] has complete discretion in determining an inmate's

place of confinement, N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.2." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346

N.J. Super. 24, 29 (App. Div. 2001). Therefore, the January 14, 2022 final

decision of the DOC was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

Affirmed.

A-1813-21 6