NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court ."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-0785-24
ZION "ELIYAH YAH" TORAH, f/k/a FRANCISCO RAWLINGS, and FRANCISCO RAWLINS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted May 13, 2026 – Decided June 5, 2026
Before Judges Gummer and Vanek.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Zion "Eliyah Yah" Torah, self-represented appellant.
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Deborah E. Wassel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Hilary E. Cohen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Petitioner Zion "Eliyah Yah" Torah, incarcerated since 1999, appeals from
an April 17, 2025 final agency decision of the New Jersey Department of
Corrections (DOC) denying his application for change in his custody
classification at South Woods State Prison. We affirm.
On September 25, 2024, the South Woods State Prison Institutional
Classification Committee (ICC) denied petitioner's request for full minimum
custody status. Petitioner's subsequent grievance and administrative appeal
were denied. This appeal followed.
On February 24, 2025, we granted the DOC's remand motion for the
limited purpose of allowing submission of an amplified ICC decision. On April
17, 2025, the DOC issued a final, amplified ICC decision.
Petitioner was transferred to Bayside State Prison on May 31, 2025.1 He
then moved for an order allowing him to proceed with this appeal, arguing the
appeal was not moot even though he had been transferred. The DOC moved to
dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. We denied the DOC's motion and
granted petitioner's motion to proceed with this appeal.
1 Petitioner's separate appeal of his custody classification status at Bayside State Prison is pending under Docket No. A-0551-25.
A-0785-24 2 Petitioner argues on appeal the ICC's denial of full minimum custody at
South Woods State Prison was arbitrary, capricious, and tantamount to a
permanent ban. Additionally, for the first time on appeal, petitioner alleges he
was entitled to commutation credits at South Woods State Prison and that he
was deprived of "community release" earnings.
"Our review of an administrative agency's final determination is limited."
Columbia Fruit Farms, Inc. v. Dep't of Cmty. Affs., 470 N.J. Super. 25, 36 (App.
Div. 2021). In reviewing an agency decision, we determine: "1) whether the
decision is consistent with the agency's governing law and policy; 2) whether
the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and 3) whether,
in applying the law to the facts, the agency reached a decision that could be
viewed as reasonable." Id. at 37. "We will disturb an agency's adjudicatory
decision only upon a finding that the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable,' or is unsupported 'by substantial credible evidence in the record
as a whole.'" Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 237-38
(App. Div. 2019) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80
(1980)); see also M.R. v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 261 N.J. 322, 337 (2025).
The challenger of the agency decision bears the burden of proving the
decision was "arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious." In re M.M., 463 N.J.
A-0785-24 3 Super. 128, 136 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002)). We are not bound by an agency's
statutory interpretation or other legal determinations; we review those de novo.
Conley v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 452 N.J. Super. 605, 613 (App. Div. 2018).
"[U]nder New Jersey law, a reduction in custody status is a matter of
privilege, not of right." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 30
(App. Div. 2001); see also N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.2. "An inmate has no liberty
interest in a particular custody level." See Shabazz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 385
N.J. Super. 117, 124 (App. Div. 2006). Accordingly, the ICC is not required to
"automatically grant a reduction in custody status to every inmate who is eligible
for consideration." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(c). Indeed, "[c]lassification of prisoners
and the decision as to what privileges they will receive rests solely within the
discretion of the Commissioner of the [DOC]." Smith, 346 N.J. Super. at 30
(citing N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6; N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.1).
Each correctional facility has its own classification committee that
determines the status of each incarcerated person based on the needs and
circumstances of that facility. See N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.2 (providing for the
composition of ICCs "at each of the correctional facilities"); N.J.A.C. 10A:9 -
3.3 (providing the custody-status decision-making criteria). An ICC is not
A-0785-24 4 required to "automatically grant a reduction in custody status to every inmate
who is eligible for consideration." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(c). The facility's ICC
makes custody-status classifications by applying the non-exhaustive factors set
forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a). Smith, 346 N.J. Super. at 31. Those factors
include "objective classification scoring results," the "nature and circumstance
of [the] present offense," the inmate's prior offense record, their "[h]istory of
escape, attempted escape, or propensity for escape," and their age and any
disciplinary history. N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a).
The ICC's denial of petitioner's request for full minimum custody status
was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. We decline to disturb the ICC's
custody status determination, as it properly applied the relevant regulatory
criteria to the undisputed facts surrounding petitioner's custody and articulated
the reasons for its decision. See Balagun v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 361 N.J. Super.
199, 203 (App. Div. 2003) (requiring an agency "disclose its reasons for any
decision, even those based upon expertise, so that a proper, searching, and
careful review by this court may be undertaken").
In its amplified decision, the ICC recounted petitioner's extensive criminal
history and noted the denial of his 2023 application for reduction in custody
because he continued to display violent tendencies and impulsive behavior while
A-0785-24 5 incarcerated. The ICC found petitioner's prior jail escape history was
significant. The ICC also concluded "[petitioner] will be unable to conduct
himself appropriately if afforded a less restrictive custody status ," noting "it is
likely that, if [petitioner] is accorded full minimum status, he will engage in
impermissible and/or aggressive conduct that will interfere with the safe order
operation of the DOC facility and will endanger the safety of the community at
large." The ICC's initial denial also incorporated "objective classification
scoring results," N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a)(1), that credited petitioner's age,
program participation, and the number of disciplinary reports issued against
him.
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-0785-24
ZION "ELIYAH YAH" TORAH, f/k/a FRANCISCO RAWLINGS, and FRANCISCO RAWLINS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent. ___________________________
Submitted May 13, 2026 – Decided June 5, 2026
Before Judges Gummer and Vanek.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Zion "Eliyah Yah" Torah, self-represented appellant.
Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Deborah E. Wassel, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Hilary E. Cohen, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Petitioner Zion "Eliyah Yah" Torah, incarcerated since 1999, appeals from
an April 17, 2025 final agency decision of the New Jersey Department of
Corrections (DOC) denying his application for change in his custody
classification at South Woods State Prison. We affirm.
On September 25, 2024, the South Woods State Prison Institutional
Classification Committee (ICC) denied petitioner's request for full minimum
custody status. Petitioner's subsequent grievance and administrative appeal
were denied. This appeal followed.
On February 24, 2025, we granted the DOC's remand motion for the
limited purpose of allowing submission of an amplified ICC decision. On April
17, 2025, the DOC issued a final, amplified ICC decision.
Petitioner was transferred to Bayside State Prison on May 31, 2025.1 He
then moved for an order allowing him to proceed with this appeal, arguing the
appeal was not moot even though he had been transferred. The DOC moved to
dismiss the appeal on mootness grounds. We denied the DOC's motion and
granted petitioner's motion to proceed with this appeal.
1 Petitioner's separate appeal of his custody classification status at Bayside State Prison is pending under Docket No. A-0551-25.
A-0785-24 2 Petitioner argues on appeal the ICC's denial of full minimum custody at
South Woods State Prison was arbitrary, capricious, and tantamount to a
permanent ban. Additionally, for the first time on appeal, petitioner alleges he
was entitled to commutation credits at South Woods State Prison and that he
was deprived of "community release" earnings.
"Our review of an administrative agency's final determination is limited."
Columbia Fruit Farms, Inc. v. Dep't of Cmty. Affs., 470 N.J. Super. 25, 36 (App.
Div. 2021). In reviewing an agency decision, we determine: "1) whether the
decision is consistent with the agency's governing law and policy; 2) whether
the decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record; and 3) whether,
in applying the law to the facts, the agency reached a decision that could be
viewed as reasonable." Id. at 37. "We will disturb an agency's adjudicatory
decision only upon a finding that the decision is 'arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable,' or is unsupported 'by substantial credible evidence in the record
as a whole.'" Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 237-38
(App. Div. 2019) (quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80
(1980)); see also M.R. v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 261 N.J. 322, 337 (2025).
The challenger of the agency decision bears the burden of proving the
decision was "arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious." In re M.M., 463 N.J.
A-0785-24 3 Super. 128, 136 (App. Div. 2020) (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
347 N.J. Super. 544, 563 (App. Div. 2002)). We are not bound by an agency's
statutory interpretation or other legal determinations; we review those de novo.
Conley v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 452 N.J. Super. 605, 613 (App. Div. 2018).
"[U]nder New Jersey law, a reduction in custody status is a matter of
privilege, not of right." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 30
(App. Div. 2001); see also N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.2. "An inmate has no liberty
interest in a particular custody level." See Shabazz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 385
N.J. Super. 117, 124 (App. Div. 2006). Accordingly, the ICC is not required to
"automatically grant a reduction in custody status to every inmate who is eligible
for consideration." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(c). Indeed, "[c]lassification of prisoners
and the decision as to what privileges they will receive rests solely within the
discretion of the Commissioner of the [DOC]." Smith, 346 N.J. Super. at 30
(citing N.J.S.A. 30:1B-6; N.J.S.A. 30:4-91.1).
Each correctional facility has its own classification committee that
determines the status of each incarcerated person based on the needs and
circumstances of that facility. See N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.2 (providing for the
composition of ICCs "at each of the correctional facilities"); N.J.A.C. 10A:9 -
3.3 (providing the custody-status decision-making criteria). An ICC is not
A-0785-24 4 required to "automatically grant a reduction in custody status to every inmate
who is eligible for consideration." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(c). The facility's ICC
makes custody-status classifications by applying the non-exhaustive factors set
forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a). Smith, 346 N.J. Super. at 31. Those factors
include "objective classification scoring results," the "nature and circumstance
of [the] present offense," the inmate's prior offense record, their "[h]istory of
escape, attempted escape, or propensity for escape," and their age and any
disciplinary history. N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a).
The ICC's denial of petitioner's request for full minimum custody status
was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. We decline to disturb the ICC's
custody status determination, as it properly applied the relevant regulatory
criteria to the undisputed facts surrounding petitioner's custody and articulated
the reasons for its decision. See Balagun v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 361 N.J. Super.
199, 203 (App. Div. 2003) (requiring an agency "disclose its reasons for any
decision, even those based upon expertise, so that a proper, searching, and
careful review by this court may be undertaken").
In its amplified decision, the ICC recounted petitioner's extensive criminal
history and noted the denial of his 2023 application for reduction in custody
because he continued to display violent tendencies and impulsive behavior while
A-0785-24 5 incarcerated. The ICC found petitioner's prior jail escape history was
significant. The ICC also concluded "[petitioner] will be unable to conduct
himself appropriately if afforded a less restrictive custody status ," noting "it is
likely that, if [petitioner] is accorded full minimum status, he will engage in
impermissible and/or aggressive conduct that will interfere with the safe order
operation of the DOC facility and will endanger the safety of the community at
large." The ICC's initial denial also incorporated "objective classification
scoring results," N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(a)(1), that credited petitioner's age,
program participation, and the number of disciplinary reports issued against
him.
Petitioner claims the ICC's reliance on his prior criminal history for the
denial demonstrates his current custody status is effectively permanent because
he "can never change his current and pas[t] criminal offenses." The ICC was
entitled to consider petitioner's past conduct in making its custody
determination. See N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.3(12); N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(2). Moreover,
consideration of this factor in denying the request at issue does not automatically
preclude a future reduction in custody status. See Smith, 346 N.J. Super. at 32
(noting a denial of reduction in custody status is not a "final, immutable
determination"); N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.5(f) (providing for recurrent "case review
A-0785-24 6 and revaluation"); N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.5(e) (requiring re-administration of
objective classification scoring if "the reasons for the [past] override cease to
apply within six months").
We reject the DOC's renewed argument that petitioner's claim is moot.
There is insufficient evidence in the record that prior custody-classification
determinations cannot be considered at other facilities. See N.J.A.C. 10A:9-
3.3(13) (providing for ICC's consideration of "[r]ecords of previous
confinement"); Shabazz, 385 N.J. Super. at 122 (holding "collateral
consequences" of custody-status determinations are "sufficient to raise a
justiciable controversy").
We decline to address petitioner's newly-minted claim he was denied
commutation credits or "community release" earnings at South Woods State
Prison. See Abbot v. Burke, 119 N.J. 287, 390 (1990). Any other arguments
not specifically addressed in this opinion lack sufficient merit to warrant
extended discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(2).
Affirmed.
A-0785-24 7