NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-1999-22
LAQUANE CURRY,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________
Submitted September 12, 2024 – Decided October 8, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Jacobs.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Laquane Curry, appellant, pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Incarcerated person, Laquane Curry, appeals the January 17, 2023 final
agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) upholding a hearing
officer's determination that he committed prohibited act *.803/*.002, attempting
to assault any person, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(ii), (xxiv). We
affirm.
We derive facts from the DOC "preliminary incident," "special custody,"
"disciplinary," and "use of force" reports, adjudication records, appellant's oral
and written statements, and the parties' respective pleadings. There is no video
or audio recording of the incident in the record.
On January 9, 2023, Curry was housed at South Woods State Prison. In
a purported effort to receive medical attention for chest pain, Curry asked
Lieutenant J. Inman "what he need[ed] to do to get at custody staff and get them
into his cell." With this, Lieutenant Inman notified medical staff as to the
medical emergency. Because Curry was housed in the Emergency Confinement
Unit (ECU) due to his "assaultive history," prison protocol required medical
personnel to respond and enter Curry's cell.
A team of correction officers was assembled and prepared to enter the cell,
telling Curry to "cuff up." Curry remained on his bed, refusing to comply with
commands of the officers and accompanying medical staff. Wary of a perceived
A-1999-22 2 excessive number of officers who arrived in response, Curry stated he no longer
wanted medical attention. Notwithstanding Curry's change of mind, officers
proceeded to enter his cell. The first to enter was Officer Velez. As Velez made
entry, Curry purportedly jumped from his bed, charged and "swung at [him] with
[a] clenched fist." In response, Velez struck Curry in the mouth with a closed
fist. Other officers then brought Curry to the ground and placed him in
restraints. They then transported Curry to a medical unit "where he was
evaluated and received [an] EKG."
Both Officer Velez and Curry incurred injuries from their encounter.
Velez sustained injury to his right hand and left knee. In a DOC "special"
medical report, it was noted that Curry had cuts and swelling to his "left top and
bottom lips," "redness and scratch" on his left shoulder, and "chest redness."
Aside from these injuries, the report reads, "[i]nmate has no other cuts, scrapes,
bruises, or bleeding . . . at this time." Curry was then "medically cleared for
constant watch."
The next day, prison authorities served Curry with an "attempting to
assault" disciplinary charge and referred the case to a hearing officer. At a
hearing before Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) Zimmerman, Curry pleaded
not guilty to having committed the charged prohibited act. Substitute counsel
A-1999-22 3 for Curry submitted a two-page written statement and requested leniency. In his
statement, Curry acknowledged telling Lieutenant Inman he was having chest
pains. However, he claimed more than twenty officers arrived in response,
whereupon he turned around and walked toward a window in his cell. Officers
then pushed their way in. Curry contended that Officer Velez hit him in the
mouth and other officers kicked him as he lay prone for over a two-minute
period. He also claimed that the number of responding officers was excessive
and in violation of prison protocol. In testimony, Curry alleged he was assaulted
and that his cell "door should've never been opened." Curry declined the
opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf or to confront adverse witnesses via
cross-examination.
Five correction officers submitted a countervailing rendition of events in
the form of "special custody" reports. Specifically, the officers cast Curry as
"combative" and the "aggressor," maintaining he was "not respons[ive]" to
verbal commands to be cuffed and brought for medical examination. Also
submitted to the DHO were five "use of force" reports, a preliminary report, and
a disciplinary report. Those reports uniformly described Curry as the aggressor
and attested to the need for additional manpower based on his assaultive history
within the institution.
A-1999-22 4 DHO Zimmerman found Curry guilty of committing a prohibited act and
assessed a sanction of 210 days in the "restorative housing unit" or
Administrative Segregation (ADSEG), 120 days' loss of commutation time, and
fifteen days' loss of core privileges. Based on Curry's allegations of protocol
violation, the DHO referred the matter to the Special Investigations Division for
further investigation.
DHO Zimmerman's decision was reviewed by Assistant Superintendent
Griffith. Griffith upheld Zimmerman's decision, specifically including findings
regarding the DOC's compliance with procedural safeguards, presumably the
number of officers assigned to extract Curry from his cell and bring him to the
medical unit. Griffith also upheld the sanctions imposed and the declination of
leniency.
On appeal, Curry raises a single argument in his initial merits brief:
POINT I
The Plaintiff Argues [t]he New Jersey Department [o]f Corrections Violated Procedure [a]nd Protocol [i]n [t]he Guilt Finding.
A-1999-22 5 In a reply brief, Curry raises a second argument:
POINT [II]
THE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED DUE TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE WRITER FOR THE DISCIPLINARY REPORT AND PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF ABILITY TO CONFRONT THIS INDIVIDUAL.
Appellate review of a final decision made by the DOC is
"limited." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div.
2010). As we have long recognized, "[p]risons are dangerous places, and the
courts must afford appropriate deference and flexibility to administrators trying
to manage this volatile environment." Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J.
Super. 576, 584 (App. Div. 1999). "We [therefore] defer to an agency decision,
and do not reverse unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or not
supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't
of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010); see also In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) ("A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own
judgement for the agency's, even though the court might have reached a different
result.'" (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007))). This customary
deference stems from the "[w]ide discretion [ ] afforded to administrative
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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-1999-22
LAQUANE CURRY,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________
Submitted September 12, 2024 – Decided October 8, 2024
Before Judges Sabatino and Jacobs.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Laquane Curry, appellant, pro se.
Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Incarcerated person, Laquane Curry, appeals the January 17, 2023 final
agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) upholding a hearing
officer's determination that he committed prohibited act *.803/*.002, attempting
to assault any person, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(ii), (xxiv). We
affirm.
We derive facts from the DOC "preliminary incident," "special custody,"
"disciplinary," and "use of force" reports, adjudication records, appellant's oral
and written statements, and the parties' respective pleadings. There is no video
or audio recording of the incident in the record.
On January 9, 2023, Curry was housed at South Woods State Prison. In
a purported effort to receive medical attention for chest pain, Curry asked
Lieutenant J. Inman "what he need[ed] to do to get at custody staff and get them
into his cell." With this, Lieutenant Inman notified medical staff as to the
medical emergency. Because Curry was housed in the Emergency Confinement
Unit (ECU) due to his "assaultive history," prison protocol required medical
personnel to respond and enter Curry's cell.
A team of correction officers was assembled and prepared to enter the cell,
telling Curry to "cuff up." Curry remained on his bed, refusing to comply with
commands of the officers and accompanying medical staff. Wary of a perceived
A-1999-22 2 excessive number of officers who arrived in response, Curry stated he no longer
wanted medical attention. Notwithstanding Curry's change of mind, officers
proceeded to enter his cell. The first to enter was Officer Velez. As Velez made
entry, Curry purportedly jumped from his bed, charged and "swung at [him] with
[a] clenched fist." In response, Velez struck Curry in the mouth with a closed
fist. Other officers then brought Curry to the ground and placed him in
restraints. They then transported Curry to a medical unit "where he was
evaluated and received [an] EKG."
Both Officer Velez and Curry incurred injuries from their encounter.
Velez sustained injury to his right hand and left knee. In a DOC "special"
medical report, it was noted that Curry had cuts and swelling to his "left top and
bottom lips," "redness and scratch" on his left shoulder, and "chest redness."
Aside from these injuries, the report reads, "[i]nmate has no other cuts, scrapes,
bruises, or bleeding . . . at this time." Curry was then "medically cleared for
constant watch."
The next day, prison authorities served Curry with an "attempting to
assault" disciplinary charge and referred the case to a hearing officer. At a
hearing before Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) Zimmerman, Curry pleaded
not guilty to having committed the charged prohibited act. Substitute counsel
A-1999-22 3 for Curry submitted a two-page written statement and requested leniency. In his
statement, Curry acknowledged telling Lieutenant Inman he was having chest
pains. However, he claimed more than twenty officers arrived in response,
whereupon he turned around and walked toward a window in his cell. Officers
then pushed their way in. Curry contended that Officer Velez hit him in the
mouth and other officers kicked him as he lay prone for over a two-minute
period. He also claimed that the number of responding officers was excessive
and in violation of prison protocol. In testimony, Curry alleged he was assaulted
and that his cell "door should've never been opened." Curry declined the
opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf or to confront adverse witnesses via
cross-examination.
Five correction officers submitted a countervailing rendition of events in
the form of "special custody" reports. Specifically, the officers cast Curry as
"combative" and the "aggressor," maintaining he was "not respons[ive]" to
verbal commands to be cuffed and brought for medical examination. Also
submitted to the DHO were five "use of force" reports, a preliminary report, and
a disciplinary report. Those reports uniformly described Curry as the aggressor
and attested to the need for additional manpower based on his assaultive history
within the institution.
A-1999-22 4 DHO Zimmerman found Curry guilty of committing a prohibited act and
assessed a sanction of 210 days in the "restorative housing unit" or
Administrative Segregation (ADSEG), 120 days' loss of commutation time, and
fifteen days' loss of core privileges. Based on Curry's allegations of protocol
violation, the DHO referred the matter to the Special Investigations Division for
further investigation.
DHO Zimmerman's decision was reviewed by Assistant Superintendent
Griffith. Griffith upheld Zimmerman's decision, specifically including findings
regarding the DOC's compliance with procedural safeguards, presumably the
number of officers assigned to extract Curry from his cell and bring him to the
medical unit. Griffith also upheld the sanctions imposed and the declination of
leniency.
On appeal, Curry raises a single argument in his initial merits brief:
POINT I
The Plaintiff Argues [t]he New Jersey Department [o]f Corrections Violated Procedure [a]nd Protocol [i]n [t]he Guilt Finding.
A-1999-22 5 In a reply brief, Curry raises a second argument:
POINT [II]
THE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED DUE TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF THE WRITER FOR THE DISCIPLINARY REPORT AND PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF ABILITY TO CONFRONT THIS INDIVIDUAL.
Appellate review of a final decision made by the DOC is
"limited." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div.
2010). As we have long recognized, "[p]risons are dangerous places, and the
courts must afford appropriate deference and flexibility to administrators trying
to manage this volatile environment." Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J.
Super. 576, 584 (App. Div. 1999). "We [therefore] defer to an agency decision,
and do not reverse unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or not
supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't
of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010); see also In re Stallworth,
208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) ("A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own
judgement for the agency's, even though the court might have reached a different
result.'" (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007))). This customary
deference stems from the "[w]ide discretion [ ] afforded to administrative
A-1999-22 6 decisions because of an agency's specialized knowledge." In re Request to
Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357, 390 (2020).
Applying these well-settled principles, we affirm the DOC's final agency
decision. Here, the DHO relied on sufficient and substantial credible evidence
to conclude that appellant refused reasonable steps taken to address his health
complaints. As documented, the presence of additional officers was needed
based on appellant's history of violent infractions and his housing in a
heightened security "Emergency Confinement Unit." In that regard, reasonable
steps implemented to ensure the safety of all concerned -- including the
assignment of extra personnel -- are not within the province of an inmate to
unilaterally dictate or refuse. This is particularly so when such steps are taken
for the ultimate benefit of the inmate, as was the circumstance here. Curry
points to no provision of the New Jersey Administrative Code that was
transgressed during the incident in question. Accordingly, we are satisfied that
the DOC's findings were based on substantial reliable evidence and that the
sanctions imposed were proportionate to the offense found.
In his reply brief, Curry advances a second argument. Our case law does
not allow an appellant to raise a new argument in reply. See State v. Smith, 55
N.J. 476, 488 (1970) (stating that it is improper to raise new issues in a reply
A-1999-22 7 brief). Nonetheless, for purposes of completeness, we set forth verbatim the
substance of Curry's second argument in which he refers to himself in the third
person:
In the present matter[,] Curry argues[ ] the individual named on the disciplinary report was not present for the incident nor is listed on the use of force, preliminary report[,] or any of the supplemental reports at all. Yet, the DHO finding of guilt is due to accusations by others who did not complete the required form. N.J.A.C. on10A:4-9.1.
[(Emphases added) (citations reformatted).]
Section 10A:4-9.1 of the New Jersey Administrative Code reads:
(a) When a violation of a prohibited act as identified in N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4, Inmate Prohibited Acts, has occurred, the DOC staff member or the staff of a contracted vendor who witnessed it or who has probable cause to believe that a prohibited act has occurred shall prepare Form 259 Disciplinary Report and forward it to the appropriate correctional supervisor.
(b) The correctional supervisor may change the report to an On-The-Spot Disciplinary Report/Adjudication or forward it to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer or Adjustment Committee for further disposition.
Curry does not identify the individual(s) who purportedly made
accusations against him without completing the proper disciplinary report form.
Our examination of the record reflects that all evidence considered against Curry
A-1999-22 8 consisted of reports prepared by identified DOC officers and staff with direct
knowledge of the incident concerned. Thus, we reject this argument.
To the extent we have not addressed them, all other arguments raised by
appellant lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E).
Affirmed.
A-1999-22 9