SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-3865-19

SAHDIEKHAN JOHNSON,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

__________________________

Submitted May 5, 2021 – Decided May 27, 2021

Before Judges Sumners and Mitterhoff.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Sahdiekhan Johnson, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Tasha M. Bradt, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3865-19

Appellant Sahdiekhan Johnson, formerly incarcerated at Northern State 

Prison, appeals from a final decision of the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections (NJDOC), which found that he committed prohibited act *.005, 

threatening another with bodily harm or with an offense against his or her person 

or property, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(ii). We affirm. 

We discern the following facts from the record. At approximately 7 p.m. 

on April 25, 2020, a corrections officer instructed appellant to put on his face 

mask and stop moving from door to door without a mask. Appellant responded 

that "he ain't doing shit." The corrections officer again instructed appellant to 

put on his mask, or "lock in." Appellant then ran down the stairs towards the 

corrections officer in an "aggressive manner." The corrections officer deployed 

pepper spray and called for assistance. 

Responding officers decontaminated appellant of the pepper spray, but he 

continued to resist their attempts to subdue him. The corrections officers 

maneuvered appellant to the ground to "gain compliance." While on the ground, 

appellant bit one of the corrections officers. Appellant was taken to the medical 

unit where he was evaluated and cleared. 

Appellant was charged with prohibited act *.803/*.002, attempting to 

assault another person, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(ii) and (xiv). 
3

A-3865-19

On April 27, 2020, appellant received written notice of the disciplinary charge. 

A disciplinary hearing was conducted on May 6, 2020. During that hearing, the 

disciplinary hearing officer amended the charge to *.005, threatening another 

with bodily harm or with any offense against his or her person or his or her 

property. Appellant entered a plea of not guilty and requested the assistance of 

counsel substitute, which was granted. 

At the conclusion of the hearing, appellant was found guilty of prohibited 

act *.005. The disciplinary hearing officer concluded that the evidence, 

including video footage, showed appellant's behavior was threatening which 

ultimately necessitated the use of pepper spray. Appellant was sanctioned to

100 days' administrative segregation, thirty days' loss of recreation privileges, 

and thirty days' loss of canteen privileges. Appellant administratively appealed 

that decision. On May 19, 2020, the facility's assistant superintendent upheld 

the finding of guilt and sanctions imposed. 

On appeal, appellant raises the following arguments for our consideration: 

POINT I 

THE CHARGES DO NOT JUSTIFY A FINDING OF 

GUILTY. 

POINT II 
4

A-3865-19

THE ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL SHOULD HAVE 

BEEN GRANTED. 

The scope of our review of a final decision of an administrative agency is 

"severely limited." George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 

27 (1994) (citing Gloucester Cnty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civ. Serv. Comm'n, 93 

N.J. 384, 390 (1983)). In an appeal from a final decision in a prisoner 

disciplinary matter, we consider whether there is substantial evidence in the 

record to support the decision that the inmate committed the prohibited act. 

Blanchard v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 461 N.J. Super. 231, 237-38 (App. Div. 2019) 

(citing Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980)); see also

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). We also must consider whether, in making its decision, 

the NJDOC followed the departmental regulations governing disciplinary 

proceedings, which were adopted to afford inmates procedural due process. See

McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-98 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 

N.J. 212, 217-22 (1995). 

Because disciplinary proceedings are not criminal prosecutions, prisoners 

are entitled to only certain limited protections, rather than the "full panoply of 

rights" afforded to criminal defendants. Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239, 248-

49 (1987) (quoting Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974)); Avant v. 

Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 522 (1975). Those limited protections include an inmate's 
5

A-3865-19

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

the hearing, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.2, a right to a fair tribunal, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15, 

a limited right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence, N.J.A.C. 

10A:4-9.13, a limited right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, 

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14, a right to a written statement of the evidence relied upon 

and the reasons for the sanctions imposed, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.24, and, in certain 

circumstances, the assistance of counsel-substitute, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.12. These 

limited rights "strike the proper balance between the security concerns of the 

prison, the need for swift and fair discipline, and the due-process rights of the 

inmates." Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197, 203 (App. Div. 2000) 

(citing McDonald, 139 N.J. at 202).

Having carefully reviewed the record, we are satisfied that the NJDOC's 

finding that appellant committed prohibited act *.005 was supported by 

substantial evidence. The record also reveals that appellant was afforded all the 

limited due process protections to which he was entitled. 

Affirmed.