Corey Morris v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

• Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division
• Decided: May 15, 2026
• Docket: A-2071-24
• Status: Unpublished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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-2071-24

COREY MORRIS,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent. __________________________

Submitted April 28, 2026 – Decided May 15, 2026

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Rosero.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

Corey Morris, self-represented appellant.

Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Deborah E. Wassel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Elizabeth Merrill, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM Corey Morris, an inmate at Northern State Prison, appeals from the

January 30, 2025 final agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC)

adjudicating Morris guilty of prohibited act *.002, assaulting any person,

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(ii). We affirm.

On December 12, 2024, while conducting a unit tour, a correctional officer

observed Morris's cellmate, Craig Lassiter, lying on the bunk inside their cell,

with bloodstains on Lassiter's sweatpants. Lassiter was ordered to step out of

the cell and the officer noticed bruising and lacerations on Lassiter's face.

Lassiter was escorted to the main medical bay for evaluation. When questioned

about the injuries, Lassiter stated, "I was eating food then I woke up on the

floor." The nurse examining Lassiter noticed a laceration on the lip and

scratches and bruising on the neck and back. Lassiter claimed to have been

struck by Morris on the back with a closed fist. Photos of Lassiter's injuries

were taken.

Another correctional officer escorted Morris to a frisk area. Reports note

cuts on both hands and forearms, and blood on Morris's pants. Photos of

Morris's injuries and sweatpants were taken.

On December 13, 2024, DOC served Morris a copy of the disciplinary

report charging Morris with prohibited act *.002 for assaulting Lassiter. The

A-2071-24 2 matter was referred for further action. A hearing was set for January 2, 2025.

Morris requested and was granted assistance of counsel substitute. The hearing

was adjourned to January 8, 2025, to determine whether any video footage of

the incident could be obtained. The adjudication report states no "[d]ocuments

and physical evidence" were presented at the hearing indicating video was not

obtained.

On January 8, 2025, the hearing reconvened. Morris pleaded not guilty

and was given the opportunity to make a statement and present witnesses, but

declined. Neither Morris nor counsel substitute moved to introduce any

documents during the hearing. Counsel substitute offered no statement but

requested leniency. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) reviewed the

correctional officers' reports, Lassiter's statement, and photos taken. The DHO

adjudicated Morris guilty of the charges finding the evidence supported the

charge. Taking into consideration Morris's "moderate" past disciplinary history

and DOC's goal to promote safety and security, the DHO sanctioned Morris to

150 days in the restorative housing unit; a 150-day loss of commutation time; a

thirty-day loss of phone privileges; a thirty-day loss of Jpay and email

privileges; a thirty-day loss of recreation privileges; and a thirty-day loss of

commissary privileges.

A-2071-24 3 Morris filed an administrative appeal. On January 30, 2025, the Assistant

Superintendent upheld the DHO's decision noting the decision was based on

substantial evidence, Morris had offered no statement or evidence to support a

denial of guilt, and that Morris had provided no reason for the behavior or any

plan to correct it.

This appeal follows. Morris argues that: (1) the hearing officer's decision

was not based upon substantial credible evidence because the officer failed to

consider Morris's claim of self-defense; (2) Morris's due process rights to a fair

hearing were violated because the DHO knew there was a class action lawsuit

filed against DOC; and (3) the finding of guilty was not supported by substantial

credible evidence.

Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Reversal is appropriate

only when the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or

unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Henry v.

Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); see also In re Taylor, 158 N.J.

644, 657 (1999) (holding that a court must uphold an agency's findings, even if

it would have reached a different result, so long as sufficient credible evidence

in the record exists to support the agency's conclusions). "[A]lthough the

determination of an administrative agency is entitled to deference, our appellate

A-2071-24 4 obligation requires more than a perfunctory review." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of

Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 191 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Blackwell v. Dep't of

Corr., 348 N.J. Super. 117, 123 (App. Div. 2002)).

"A finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial

evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-

9.15(a). "Substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might

accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192

(quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). In other

words, it is "evidence furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency's action."

Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192 (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,

347 N.J. Super. 544, 562 (2002)).

In addition, an inmate is not accorded "the full panoply of rights" in a

disciplinary proceeding afforded a defendant in a criminal prosecution. Avant

v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Instead, prisoners are entitled to: written

notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing; an impartial

tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence; a

limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a right to a

written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the sanctions

imposed; and, where the charges are complex, the assistance of a counsel

A-2071-24 5 substitute. Id. at 525-33; accord Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995);

McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995).

Morris claims the DHO's decision was not based upon substantial credible

evidence because the officer failed to consider Morris's claim of self-defense.

However, Morris did not raise a claim of self-defense at the hearing despite

having had the opportunity to do so. In support of this claim, Morris relies on a

Request for Assistance Form filed with the Office of the Corrections

Ombudsman for assistance with law books allegedly stolen by Lassiter, wherein

Morris discusses self-defense for the pending charge. Morris did not introduce

that form during the hearing. As such, due to the failure to introduce any

evidence of self-defense at the hearing, the DHO could not consider an assertion

of a self-defense claim making this claim on appeal without merit.

Morris next claims a violation of due process rights to a fair hearing

because the DHO knew there was a class action lawsuit filed against DOC.

Morris failed to raise a request for a recusal of the DHO before or during the

hearing and only raised this claim for the first time during his administrative

appeal. Other than bald assertions, Morris has not produced any evidence to

support this claim of bias by the DHO. Because no objection was raised prior

to or during the hearing, DOC was deprived of the opportunity to investigate

A-2071-24 6 this claim and recuse the DHO from Morris's hearing if necessary as Morris

claims. As such, Morris's violation of due process claim on this ground is also

without merit.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the DOC's

decision is supported by substantial credible evidence and that the agency

afforded Morris the due process protections to which they were entitled. There

is no basis on which to overturn the agency's decision.

Affirmed.

A-2071-24 7