SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4045-18T1

NAFIS KEDAR,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________

Submitted June 4, 2020 – Decided June 18, 2020

Before Judges Alvarez and Suter.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Nafis Kedar, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Shuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Kimberly Gail Williams, 

Deputy Attorney 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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 parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
2

A-4045-18T1

Nafis Kedar, an inmate at Northern State Prison, appeals from an April 

11, 2019 Department of Corrections (DOC) final administrative decision 

adjudicating him guilty of prohibited act *.252, encouraging others to riot; 

*.306, conduct disrupting or interfering with the security or orderly running of 

the correctional facility; and *.256, refusing to obey an order of any staff 

member, all in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). We affirm, concluding that 

Kedar's arguments on appeal are so lacking in merit as to not warrant discussion 

in a written decision. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).

Kedar was present, along with others, when an inmate assaulted an officer 

on April 8, 2019. That officer called out for everyone to lie down on the floor.

Kedar, along with at least one other inmate, remained on his feet, yelling. 

The incident was captured on film, and reviewed the following day by two other 

prison officers. Kedar was served with disciplinary charges the following day. 

He was assigned counsel substitute.

"A finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial 

evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act." 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 v. N.J. Dep't of Corrs., 

414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas 
3

A-4045-18T1

Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). Such evidence must furnish a reasonable basis 

for the agency's action. Ibid. (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd., 347 

N.J. Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002)).

Furthermore, an inmate is not entitled to the full panoply of rights in a 

disciplinary proceeding ordinarily extended to a defendant in a criminal 

prosecution. Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Prisoners are entitled 

to written notice of the charges at least twenty-four hours prior to the hearing; 

an impartial tribunal; a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary 

evidence; a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses; a 

right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon and reasons for the 

sanctions imposed; and, where the charges are complex, the assistance of a 

counsel substitute. Id. at 525-33; accord Jacobs v. Stevens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995); 

McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995). 

We do not address the merits of Kedar's first two points of error because 

they simply express his disagreement with the conclusion the hearing officer 

and the prison administrator reached after reviewing the evidence. That 

evidence included a video. Kedar was afforded the opportunity to refute the 

evidence; whatever the reason, he chose not to do so. Thus, the finding of guilt, 
4

A-4045-18T1

given the unrefuted report of the officer present and the video of the incident 

was based upon substantial evidence.

Kedar's third point is that sanctions he received involved "more time" than 

the sanctions imposed on others involved in the incident. As to that claim, 

nothing in the record supports this new ground for appeal.

Affirmed.