SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4716-12T3

KASEEM ALI-X,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_______________________________

Submitted September 18, 2017 – Decided 

Before Judges Ostrer and Whipple.

On appeal from New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Kaseem Ali-X, appellant pro se.

Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, 

attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; 

Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, on 

the brief).

PER CURIAM

Kaseem Ali-X is an inmate serving a sentence of thirty-five 

years to life for murder and other crimes. He is appealing the 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

October 18, 2017
2 A-4716-12T3

Department of Corrections'(DOC) denial of his property claim for 

a lost word processing disc and other items. We affirm.

Upon our review of the record, on January 13, 2012, Ali-X was 

transferred from South Woods State Prison to East Jersey State 

Prison. On August 22, 2012, Ali-X was transferred from East Jersey 

State Prison to New Jersey State Prison. On September 4, 2012, 

Ali-X signed an inmate inventory sheet and received his property, 

including, among other things, twenty-one "diskettes." Inmate 

inventory sheets dated August 23, 2012 and August 17, 2012, but 

not signed by Ali-X, list twenty-six discs1 and twenty ribbons. 

On March 6, 2013, Ali-X submitted an inmate claim form,

asserting he was missing a word processor disc, four erasers, and 

eight inkpads. In support of his claim, he submitted a denial of 

an Open Public Records Act request and two mailroom memos from 

South Woods State Prison. After investigating, the DOC denied the 

claim because Ali-X did not prove he ever possessed the items or

was authorized to have them. Moreover, the investigation revealed 

no neglect on the part of DOC staff. Ali-X appealed.

On May 27, 2014, we dismissed Ali-X's appeal because he did 

not exhaust his administrative remedies. On August 11, 2014, we 

reinstated the appeal but ultimately remanded on November 5, 2014,

 

1 While we recognize that disks and discs are two distinct objects, 

the record appears to use them interchangeably. For the purposes 

of this opinion, we will utilize the spelling "disc."
3 A-4716-12T3

to permit the DOC to complete an administrative record. On March 

31, 2015, Ali-X submitted a new property claim for a word processor 

system disc, four inkers of ribbons, and four pencil erasers.

After an investigation, the DOC again denied the claim because 

Ali-X did not prove he ever possessed the erasers or inkers when 

he was transferred to the New Jersey State Prison. The 

investigation revealed Ali-X had at least twenty-one discs when 

he was transferred but whether any of those was a word processing 

system disc was indeterminable. Moreover, when Ali-X was

incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison, his word processor had 

been sent to an outside vendor for repairs and had been returned 

to New Jersey State Prison. At some point, although unclear from 

the record, the word processor was confiscated as contraband.

There was no evidence either facility was responsible for the loss 

of the program disc because it could have been in the machine that 

was shipped to the vendor for repairs. The DOC issued a final 

decision denying Ali-X's claim, which we now consider.

On appeal, Ali-X argues:

POINT I.

IN ERROR OF LAW THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS HAS STOLEN THE APPELLANT'S CLAIMED 

ITEMS.

POINT II.

IN ERROR OF LAW NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS HAS DELIBERATELY DISREGARDED 

PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS.
4 A-4716-12T3

POINT III.

IN ERROR OF LAW THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS HAS UNLAWFULLY ABUSED ITS OFFICE.

We have considered Ali-X's arguments, in light of the record 

and applicable legal standards, and find them to be without 

sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We 

add the following brief remarks.

The scope of our review in an appeal from a final agency 

decision is limited. Decisions of administrative agencies will 

not be reversed unless shown to be "arbitrary, capricious or 

unreasonable or . . . not supported by substantial credible 

evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 

81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980) (citing Campbell v. Dep't of Civil 

Serv., 38 N.J. 556, 562 (1963)).

The DOC uses an inmate inventory sheet "to itemize all 

personal property in the inmate's possession . . . upon transfer." 

N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.6(a). Once an inmate properly files a claim for 

lost, damaged, or destroyed personal property, the DOC must conduct 

an investigation and prepare a report. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b).

The report shall consist of, but not be limited to, "obtaining 

statements from the inmate, witnesses, and correctional facility 

staff" and "verifying that the inmate was authorized to have and 

did, in fact, possess the personal property." Ibid. "Verification 

of possession of lost, damaged, or destroyed personal property may 
5 A-4716-12T3

be made by review of applicable documentation, such as the IIS-1M

inmate inventory sheet maintained by the correctional facility"

pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11. Ibid. After completion of the 

investigation, the inmate's claim form and a copy of the 

investigative report must be submitted to the business manager of 

the correctional facility for review. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(c).

Before the claim is approved or denied, the DOC considers 

whether the investigation revealed any neglect by the correctional 

facility; whether care was exercised by facility staff to prevent

property loss, damage, or destruction; whether the inmate 

exercised care in preventing property loss, damage, or 

destruction; and whether it has been proven that the inmate was 

authorized to have and did, in fact, possess the items. N.J.A.C.

10A:2-6.2(a). The DOC also considers whether sufficient 

information has been supplied by the inmate, including proper 

receipts, witnesses, and investigative reports; whether the inmate 

submitted the claim in a timely manner; whether the loss or damage 

exceeds authorized amounts of correctional facility personal 

property limits; whether the personal property is considered 

contraband; and whether other reviewers recommended denial of the 

claim and the reasons stated. Ibid. If a claim is denied, the 

DOC must notify the inmate in writing and provide substantiating 

reasons. N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(f).
6 A-4716-12T3

Here, the DOC followed the required procedures, using an 

inmate inventory sheet to itemize all of Ali-X's personal property 

on the day he was transferred to the New Jersey State Prison. The 

DOC conducted an investigation after receiving Ali-X's claim, 

considered the N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a) factors before denying it, 

notified Ali-X in writing, and provided substantiating reasons. 

We are satisfied there was substantial, credible evidence in the 

record as a whole to support the DOC's reasons for denying AliX's claim, and the decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable.

While our review of the record does not explain discrepancies 

between inventory lists and Ali-X's lost property claims, we cannot 

determine, based on the record, that the DOC officials lost, 

improperly confiscated, or stole his property or fraudulently 

denied his claim. The discrepancies alone do not establish Ali-X 

possessed the erasers or inkers for ribbons nor does it establish 

whether the discs he received included the word processing disc.

Affirmed.