SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-0494-16T3

WARREN ALSTON,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________

Submitted May 24, 2018 – Decided June 7, 2018

Before Judges Simonelli and Haas. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Warren Alston, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney 

for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; 

Suzanne M. Davies, Deputy Attorney General, 

on the brief).

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff Warren Alston appeals from the January 11, 2018 

final decision of respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2 A-0494-16T3

(DOC), which denied his request for his uncertified birth 

certificate. We affirm.

Alston is an inmate currently incarcerated at East Jersey 

State prison. He was convicted of armed burglary, aggravated 

sexual assault, aggravated assault, and possession of a weapon for 

an unlawful purpose, and is serving a twenty-year term of 

imprisonment with a seventeen-year period of parole ineligibility.

Alston filed a request to obtain an uncertified copy of his 

birth certificate and authorization to possess it on his person. 

The DOC denied his request, stating that "[n]o birth certificates 

of any kind are approved to be held on person." 

Alston appealed, arguing the DOC violated his constitutional 

rights by depriving him of an uncertified copy of his birth 

certificate that would indicate it was issued for informational

purposes only and where no penological interest compelled 

confiscation or seizure by prison authorities. Alston also argued 

that the document entitled "Original Birth Record" is only an 

informational record and not a birth certificate. On September 

20, 2017, the DOC issued a final decision denying Alston's request, 

stating birth certificates are not permitted in an inmate's 

possession and he could have Social Services assist him if he 

needed it for a legal reason. 
3 A-0494-16T3

Alston appealed to this court, reiterating the arguments 

presented to the DOC.1 The DOC subsequently filed a motion for 

remand, which we granted. On remand, the DOC issued an amended 

final decision on January 18, 2018, determining that for security 

and safety reasons, inmates are not permitted to have any identity 

creating documents, such as a social security card or birth 

certificate, in their possession. The DOC explained that 

a birth certificate serves no purpose to the 

incarcerated person, and could only prove to 

serve as a potentially serious safety and 

security risk to the prison and the public as 

a birth certificate, whether certified or not, 

can be used to either steal an identity and/or 

verify identities and/or create alternate 

identities. 

The DOC also determined "the birth certificate is not needed for 

the inmate to obtain any service or partake in any function at the 

facility[,]" and an inmate could obtain assistance through the 

social service department if he or she had a personal issue that 

required a birth certificate. Lastly, the DOC determined that its 

policy dictated the storage of birth certificates in a safe place 

and not in an inmate's possession. 

 

1 We decline to address Alston's additional argument that the DOC 

violated his rights under the Adoption Record Act, N.J.S.A. 9:3-

37 to -56, by withholding, confiscating, or seizing information 

pertaining to his natural parents. Alston did not raise this 

issue before the DOC, and it is not jurisdictional in nature nor 

does it substantially implicate the public interest. Zaman v. 

Felton, 219 N.J. 199, 226-27 (2014) (citation omitted).
4 A-0494-16T3

Our review of a decision of an administrative agency is 

limited. Williams v. D.J. Dep't of Corr., 423 N.J. Super. 176, 

182 (App. Div. 2011) (citation omitted). We "ordinarily will 

reverse the decision of an administrative agency only when the 

agency's decision 'is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or 

[] is not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record 

as a whole.'" Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18, 23 

(App. Div. 2005) (alteration in original) (quoting Henry v. Rahway 

State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)). 

We have considered Alston's arguments in light of the record 

and applicable legal principles and conclude there is sufficient 

credible evidence in the record as a whole supporting the DOC's

decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). We affirm substantially for the 

reasons the DOC expressed in its January 11, 2018 final decision. 

We also conclude that Alton's arguments are without sufficient 

merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-

3(e)(1)(E).

Affirmed.