NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court."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-1396-24
QUANTIS GOOD,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted May 12, 2026 – Decided July 24, 2026
Before Judges Sumners and Susswein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Quantis Good, self-represented appellant.
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Deborah E. Wassel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Eric Intriago, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
New Jersey State Prison inmate Quantis Good appeals the Department of
Correction's (DOC) August 7, 2024 final agency decision upholding institutional
disciplinary sanctions for committing the prohibited act of engaging in a group
demonstration or work stoppage. After reviewing the record in light of
governing legal principles, we affirm. The DOC's findings are amply supported
by credible evidence in the record, including video evidence of the incident. The
record also belies Good's contentions that his due process rights were violated.
I.
We discern the following pertinent facts from the record. On May 23,
2024, Good and about twenty-six other New Jersey State Prison inmates were
working in the cookhouse area of the prison. Due to an unrelated security
incident, the prison was placed on lockdown, and the cookhouse workers were
advised by the area supervisor, Sergeant Perez, that because of the lockdown,
they could either return to their cells without taking a shower or continue
working and shower later. The cookhouse workers indicated they desired to
continue working, but after a dispute with Sergeant Perez about whether they
would in fact receive showers later, they ultimately refused to work. A
specialized corrections team was then called in to extract the noncompliant
inmates.
A-1396-24 2 Good and other cookhouse workers moved various water containers to
strategic areas of the cookhouse. When the specialized corrections team entered,
Good and others simultaneously spilled the containers of water on the floor in
an effort to impede the team by making the area slippery. These events were
captured on surveillance video.
Good was charged with a *.253 1 violation, engaging in or encouraging a
group demonstration or work stoppage. The initial hearing date was postponed
to obtain video footage of the incident and for officers to provide supplemental
reports. On June 10, 2024, a disciplinary hearing was convened at which Good,
through his counsel substitute, pleaded not guilty, provided a written statement
for the record, and viewed the video of the incident. In his defense, Good
claimed he had intended to use the water only on his face to combat the effe cts
of any mace the specialized team might use and that he did not intend to interfere
with the team. Good admitted that after the specialized team entered, he "poured
[his] water out."
Good declined to present or confront witnesses, even after Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (DHO) Cortes advised Good and his counsel substitute
1 Under the DOC's regulations on inmate discipline, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1, "[a]sterisk offenses" are prohibited acts considered to be the most serious violations, resulting in the most severe sanctions. A-1396-24 3 numerous times of their right of confrontation. Good and his counsel substitute
declined each time, responding that DHO Cortes would "still . . . find [Good]
guilty."
DHO Cortes viewed the video recordings of the incident and reviewed
three officers' reports, which had been prepared with the aid of the video
recordings because no officers had been in the room during some of the relevant
events. DHO Cortes found Good guilty and sanctioned him to 180 days' loss of
commutation time, 120 days in the restorative housing unit, and 180 days' loss
of privileges.
On June 13, 2024, Good administratively appealed the guilty finding,
arguing it was improper to allow officers to review the video footage of the
incident and subsequently provide supplemental reports. Good also argued the
video footage exonerated him because he was seen neither speaking nor meeting
with anyone.
In its August 7, 2024 final decision, the DOC upheld the DHO's decision,
noting "all reports were reviewed" and that there was "substantial evidence
against" Good. The DOC also noted there was compliance with the
administrative code, "which prescribes procedural safeguards," and "there were
no issues" with "the DHO process."
A-1396-24 4 This appeal followed. Good raises the following contentions for our
consideration:
POINT I
THE DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS SINCE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A GUILTY FINDING OF THE INFRACTION.
A. Appellant's Due Process Rights under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)[,] and Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 530 (1975)[,] were violated during the Courtline proceedings.
II.
The scope of our review of a DOC final agency decision is limited.
Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). The
deference we accord to the DOC recognizes that "[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). Accordingly, we "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).
A-1396-24 5 An adjudication of guilt of an infraction must be supported by "substantial
evidence." 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, 35 N.J. 358, 376
(1961)). The term has also been defined as "evidence furnishing a reasonable
basis for the agency's action." McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J.
Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002). "[W]here there is substantial evidence in the
record to support more than one regulatory conclusion, it is the agency's choice
which governs." Murray v. State Health Benefits Comm'n, 337 N.J. Super. 435,
442 (App. Div. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Prison disciplinary hearings are not criminal prosecutions, and thus, the
full spectrum of rights afforded to criminal defendants do not apply. Avant v.
Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Prisoners facing disciplinary sanctions are
nonetheless entitled to certain procedural protections, which our Supreme Court
prescribed in Avant. Id. at 525-29. These procedural requirements, which have
since been codified in regulations, include notification of the disciplinary
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-1396-24
QUANTIS GOOD,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted May 12, 2026 – Decided July 24, 2026
Before Judges Sumners and Susswein.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Quantis Good, self-represented appellant.
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Deborah E. Wassel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Eric Intriago, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
New Jersey State Prison inmate Quantis Good appeals the Department of
Correction's (DOC) August 7, 2024 final agency decision upholding institutional
disciplinary sanctions for committing the prohibited act of engaging in a group
demonstration or work stoppage. After reviewing the record in light of
governing legal principles, we affirm. The DOC's findings are amply supported
by credible evidence in the record, including video evidence of the incident. The
record also belies Good's contentions that his due process rights were violated.
I.
We discern the following pertinent facts from the record. On May 23,
2024, Good and about twenty-six other New Jersey State Prison inmates were
working in the cookhouse area of the prison. Due to an unrelated security
incident, the prison was placed on lockdown, and the cookhouse workers were
advised by the area supervisor, Sergeant Perez, that because of the lockdown,
they could either return to their cells without taking a shower or continue
working and shower later. The cookhouse workers indicated they desired to
continue working, but after a dispute with Sergeant Perez about whether they
would in fact receive showers later, they ultimately refused to work. A
specialized corrections team was then called in to extract the noncompliant
inmates.
A-1396-24 2 Good and other cookhouse workers moved various water containers to
strategic areas of the cookhouse. When the specialized corrections team entered,
Good and others simultaneously spilled the containers of water on the floor in
an effort to impede the team by making the area slippery. These events were
captured on surveillance video.
Good was charged with a *.253 1 violation, engaging in or encouraging a
group demonstration or work stoppage. The initial hearing date was postponed
to obtain video footage of the incident and for officers to provide supplemental
reports. On June 10, 2024, a disciplinary hearing was convened at which Good,
through his counsel substitute, pleaded not guilty, provided a written statement
for the record, and viewed the video of the incident. In his defense, Good
claimed he had intended to use the water only on his face to combat the effe cts
of any mace the specialized team might use and that he did not intend to interfere
with the team. Good admitted that after the specialized team entered, he "poured
[his] water out."
Good declined to present or confront witnesses, even after Disciplinary
Hearing Officer (DHO) Cortes advised Good and his counsel substitute
1 Under the DOC's regulations on inmate discipline, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1, "[a]sterisk offenses" are prohibited acts considered to be the most serious violations, resulting in the most severe sanctions. A-1396-24 3 numerous times of their right of confrontation. Good and his counsel substitute
declined each time, responding that DHO Cortes would "still . . . find [Good]
guilty."
DHO Cortes viewed the video recordings of the incident and reviewed
three officers' reports, which had been prepared with the aid of the video
recordings because no officers had been in the room during some of the relevant
events. DHO Cortes found Good guilty and sanctioned him to 180 days' loss of
commutation time, 120 days in the restorative housing unit, and 180 days' loss
of privileges.
On June 13, 2024, Good administratively appealed the guilty finding,
arguing it was improper to allow officers to review the video footage of the
incident and subsequently provide supplemental reports. Good also argued the
video footage exonerated him because he was seen neither speaking nor meeting
with anyone.
In its August 7, 2024 final decision, the DOC upheld the DHO's decision,
noting "all reports were reviewed" and that there was "substantial evidence
against" Good. The DOC also noted there was compliance with the
administrative code, "which prescribes procedural safeguards," and "there were
no issues" with "the DHO process."
A-1396-24 4 This appeal followed. Good raises the following contentions for our
consideration:
POINT I
THE DECISION OF THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS SINCE THE EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT A GUILTY FINDING OF THE INFRACTION.
A. Appellant's Due Process Rights under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974)[,] and Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 530 (1975)[,] were violated during the Courtline proceedings.
II.
The scope of our review of a DOC final agency decision is limited.
Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). The
deference we accord to the DOC recognizes that "[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). Accordingly, we "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).
A-1396-24 5 An adjudication of guilt of an infraction must be supported by "substantial
evidence." 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, 35 N.J. 358, 376
(1961)). The term has also been defined as "evidence furnishing a reasonable
basis for the agency's action." McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 N.J.
Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002). "[W]here there is substantial evidence in the
record to support more than one regulatory conclusion, it is the agency's choice
which governs." Murray v. State Health Benefits Comm'n, 337 N.J. Super. 435,
442 (App. Div. 2001) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Prison disciplinary hearings are not criminal prosecutions, and thus, the
full spectrum of rights afforded to criminal defendants do not apply. Avant v.
Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Prisoners facing disciplinary sanctions are
nonetheless entitled to certain procedural protections, which our Supreme Court
prescribed in Avant. Id. at 525-29. These procedural requirements, which have
since been codified in regulations, include notification of the disciplinary
hearing, a right to a fair tribunal, a limited right to call witnesses and present
evidence, a limited right to cross-examine adverse witnesses, a right to a written
statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the sanctions imposed,
A-1396-24 6 and the assistance of counsel-substitute for certain offenses. See N.J.A.C.
10A:4-9.2; 10A:4-9.12 to .15; 10A:4-9.24. These regulations "strike the proper
balance between the security concerns of the prison, the need for swift and fair
discipline, and the due-process rights of the inmates." Williams v. Dep't of
Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 203 (App. Div. 2000) (citing McDonald v. Pinchak,
139 N.J. 188, 202 (1995)).
We are satisfied that all the procedures employed in this case complied
with Good's due process rights. We need only briefly address Good's novel
contention that his rights were violated by allowing officers not present for the
incident to review the video recordings of the events in question before
preparing supplemental reports that were introduced at the hearing. Good cites
to no precedent and offers no explanation for why that procedure violated his
rights, especially considering that he was offered—and declined—the
opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and thereby highlight that they were not
present for the incident.
We agree with the Attorney General that allowing the officers to view the
video recordings and then prepare reports was necessary in this case because of
the large number of inmates involved in the incident. If anything, this practice
ensured the accuracy of the testimonial evidence presented at the hearing. We
A-1396-24 7 emphasize that while Good did not exercise the right to cross-examine the report
writers, the right of confrontation offered to him addresses any concerns about
allowing an officer to review video evidence before preparing a report.
We are likewise unpersuaded by Good's argument that Sergeant Caldwell
should not have been allowed to investigate the matter for the disciplinary
hearing because he prepared the initial charges. The record belies that
contention, as Sergeant Cancellieri, not Sergeant Caldwell, conducted the
investigation, which mostly consisted of reviewing the video footage. Sergeant
Cancellieri signed the investigator's signature page.
Furthermore, even accepting that Sergeant Caldwell participated in the
investigation by reporting information from other officers or gathering materials
related to the incident after its occurrence, nothing in the regulatory framework
precluded Sergeant Caldwell from performing those roles. Good's reliance on
N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.5(b) for the proposition that Sergeant Caldwell was prohibited
from acting as an "investigating officer" is misplaced. That regulation
forecloses a person who was "involved in the particular incident to be
investigated" from being an investigating officer. Nothing in the record
indicates that Sergeant Caldwell was involved in the incident on May 23, 2024.
A-1396-24 8 Relatedly, Good's contention that Sergeant Caldwell was a witness
because he was the "reporting employee" on the initial disciplinary report is
incorrect. Nothing in that document—which is simply notice of a charge and is
not itself evidence that can be considered in a hearing—indicates that Sergeant
Caldwell was, or claimed to be, a witness to the demonstration/work stoppage.
At bottom, Good received a hearing before an impartial decision maker
regarding the charges; the opportunity to see the evidence and witnesses upon
which the DOC relied; services of a counsel substitute; an opportunity to
confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; and an opportunity to present
evidence in his defense. In these circumstances, we find no violation of his due
process rights.
Furthermore, substantial credible evidence supports the DOC's finding
that Good committed a *.253 violation. As we have noted, the evidence shows
that DOC officials ordered Good and the other cookhouse workers to continue
working, but numerous inmates including Good refused. Instead of working,
Good and the other noncompliant inmates "sat together devising a plan and then
began to order the other inmates to do what they said." Good and the other
noncompliant inmates then "dump[ed] the water out of the water jugs on the
mess hall making the area slippery for the response team." As we have noted,
A-1396-24 9 Good in his written statement admitted that after the specialized team entered,
he "poured [his] water out."
Finally, and perhaps most importantly in terms of substantial credible
evidence, the DHO viewed the video recordings at the hearing, confirming
Good's participation in the demonstration/work stoppage.
To the extent we have not specifically addressed them, any remaining
arguments raised by Good lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-
3(e)(1)(E).
Affirmed.
A-1396-24 10