SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-1813- 21 ASHLEY GEORGES, Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

___________________________

Submitted March 4, 2024

– Decided March 12, 2024 Before Judges Sabatino and Mawla. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Ashely Georges, appellant pro se. Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Sara M. Gregory, Assistant Attorney General, o f counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attor ney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court.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 parti es in the case and its use in other cases is limite d. R. 1:36- 3.2 A- 1813

- 21

Appellant Ashley Georges appeals from a January 14 , 2022 final agency decision by the New Jersey Department of Correction s (DOC), denying his request to be returned to his former housing. We a ffirm. Appellant is presently incarcerated at South Woods State Prison (SWSP). He was transferred there from East Jersey State Pri son (EJSP) in October 2022. This appeal concerns his housing while he was at EJ SP. On October 21, 2021, appellant and three other inm ates were being transported from EJSP to Northern State Prison (NSP ) for a medical appointment. Prior to leaving EJSP, the inmates we re given the opportunity to use the restroom. While awaiting intake at NSP, ap pellant stated, "I will just piss in the back of the van," and urinated in the b ack compartment of the van, including on the back doors. The officers transpor ting appellant reported "this happened in full view of the other [inmates] and . . . vehicle cameras." As a result, appellant was charged with: *.012, th rowing bodily fluid at any person, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(x); *.306, con duct which disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(xix); *.053, indecent expo sure, N.J.A.C. 10A:4- 4.1(a)(1)(vi); and .152, destroying, altering, or d amaging government property, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(4)(i). A hearing officer dis missed the

. 152 , *.306, and3 A- 1813

- 21

*.053 charges, and reduced the original *.012 charg e to an on- the

- spot

correction for .651, being unsanitary, N.J.A.C. 10A :4-4.1(a)(5)(xiii). Appellant did not appeal from the adjudication. Prior to the adjudication, appellant was placed in the Close Custody Unit (C CU) for a day. Following his release from the CCU , he submitted an inmate inquiry form claiming he was released from CCU beca use the prison determined he should not have been placed there. He was then placed in a different wing because another prisoner was put in his former cell . Appellant complained the adjudicated charges were "bogus" and that he should never have been moved from his former wing where he had resided for appro ximately seven years. The DOC responded: "Housing is at the discretion o f [the DOC] and EJSP Administration. You will need to re-apply for your previous housing." Appellant submitted inquiry forms in November and December 2021, requesting a move back to his previous living quart ers. He explained he was enrolled in college an d needed to return to a single cell again to study an d having a cellmate was distracting. The DOC reiterated app ellant should "apply through the regular wing move process." Appellant submitted four more inquiry forms over th e course of December 2021 and January 2022. He claimed prison officials were conspiring "to punish4 A- 1813

- 21

[him] for filing various grievances and lawsuits fo r the conditions of [his] confinement, inadequate law library, [and] delay of medical treatment." He reiterated he was "unjustifiably removed from [his] single cell due to falsified charges that were dismissed for lack of evidence." Appellant claimed he was moved to a "congregated area," exposing him to COVI D-19. He further expressed concerns about "changes in [his] behavior due to [his] sudden placement" in the new unit and detailed that being in a single cell helped his mental health, and he had earned this privilege. The DOC responded appellant's housing assignment wa s not punitive because he was put in a general population unit. M oreover, "[h]ousing unit assignments are made on a case[-]by[-]case basis in accordance with the provisions set forth in [N.J.A.C.] 10A [and] . . . are based on a variety of criteria." The DOC stated appellant's housing assignment was made after a consideration of the criterion in the regulations a nd would remain in force. Appellant filed this appeal in February 2022. He was subsequently transferred to SWSP in October 2022.
I. Appellant argues the DOC violated his due process rights when he was detained before the disciplinary hearing. He claim s there was no basis for the5 A- 1813

- 21

disciplinary charges because he was "denied the use of the bathroom[,] resulting in him urinating on himself." Further, after the i nitial hearing, the hearing officer improperly failed to give him twenty-four h ours' notice of the on - the

spot -correction for being unsanitary and did not provid e him with a hearing on that charge, as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.16(b). Appellant reiterates the housing change and placem ent in the general population during a "raging pandemic" was completel y punitive. He claims another inmate was issued a disciplinary infraction during the same time, and that inmate was provided a hearing before he was mo ved. Moreover, that inmate was moved back to his original housing after a month. App ellant claims he was treated differently because he "has a history of wr iting grievances and filing law[]suits." Our role in reviewing a final decision by the DOC i s limited. Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). The decision must not be disturbed on appeal unless it was "arbi trary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 ( 1980). Indeed, "[w]ide discretion is afforded to administrative de cisions because of an agency's6 A- 1813

- 21

specialized knowledge." In re Request to Modify Pr ison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357, 390 (2020 ). At the outset, we do not address the arguments rel ating to the nature of the disciplinary charges, the disciplinary proceedi ng itself, or its outcome because, as we noted, appellant did not file an adm inistrative appeal from the disciplinary adjudicati on . See R. 2:2 -3(a)(2). With regards to appellant's arguments relating to h is housing, our Supreme Court has stated "prisoners do not have a 'liberty interest' under the due process clause in 'remaining free from transfer to more restr icted facilities.'" Request to Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. at 382 (quoting S zemple v. Dep't of Corr., 384 N.J. Super. 245, 249 (App. Div. 2006)). I n Shabazz v. Department of Corrections, we held an inmate transferred from a ha lfway house to jail "did not have a constitutionally protected interest in his i nitial placement." 385 N.J. Super. 117, 124 (App. Div. 2006). "In addition, un der State law, the Commissioner of the [DOC] has complete discretion in det ermining an inmate's place of confinement, N.J.S.A. 30:4 -91.2." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 29 (App. Div. 2001). Therefore, th e January 14, 2022 final decision of the DOC was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. Affirmed.