RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-4263-18T3

IN THE MATTER OF THE

CIVIL COMMITMENT OF R.T.,

SVP-573-10.

Submitted March 17, 2020 – Decided March 27. 2020

Before Judges Fisher and Rose.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law 

Division, Middlesex County, Docket No. SVP-573-10.

R.T., appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Stephen J. Slocum, Deputy 

Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM

R.T. appeals pro se a Law Division order that denied his motion to change 

his status in the Special Treatment Unit (STU),1and an order that denied 

1

 The STU is a secure facility designated for the custody, care and treatment of 

sexually violent predators pursuant to the Sexually Violent Predator Act 

(SVPA), N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.24 to -27.38.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4263-18T3

reconsideration. On appeal, R.T. raises the following points for our 

consideration:

POINT I

THE CIVIL COMMITMENT COURT ERRED AND 

ABUSED ITS DISCRETION FOR NOT ORDERING 

REMOVING [SIC] R.T. FROM TREATMENT 

REFUSAL STATUS, [MODIFIED ACTIVITIES 

PROGRAM] (MAP) PLACEMENT WHEN IT 

DENIED R.T.'S MOTION FOR TREATMENT AND 

TRANSFER TO GENERAL POPULATION AND/OR 

FOR DISCHARGE.

POINT II

TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY 

RELYING ON THE PRISON SETTINGS, AND THE 

STU IS A CIVIL FACILITY [SIC] VIOLATED R.T.'S 

RIGHTS UNDER THE SEXUALLY VIOLENT 

PREDATOR ACT AND UNDER N.J.A.C. 10:35 

RESULTING [SIC] R.T.'S INABILITY TO RECEIVE 

TREATMENT WHEN HIS EXPERT'S REPORT 

STATED THAT HE DID NOT POSES [SIC] A 

"DANGER TO HIMSELF [SIC] TO OTHERS."

In his reply brief, R.T. further contends:

THE RESPONDENT'S LETTER BRIEF ON THE 

MERITS SHOULD BE REJECTED AS A MATTER 

OF LAW BASED ON APPELLATE BRIEF, 

APPENDIX AND THE FEDERAL COURT'S 10/31/19 

OPINION AND ORDER.

We have reviewed the record in light of these contentions, and conclude 

they lack sufficient merit to warrant extended discussion in a written opinion. 
3

A-4263-18T3

R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm all issues R.T. raised before Judge Phillip Lewis 

Paley for the reasons set forth in his well-reasoned written decisions that 

accompanied the orders under review. We add only the following brief remarks. 

We are thoroughly familiar with the facts and circumstances surrounding 

R.T.'s commitment to the STU, having previously affirmed the judgment 

committing him to the unit. See IMO Civil Commitment of R.T., No. A-2521-

13 (App. Div. Feb. 19, 2016) (slip op. at 1-17). In the present matter, R.T. 

sought various relief in the Law Division, but he did not challenge his continued 

commitment. 

Pertinent to this appeal, R.T. requested removal from MAP status – which 

he claimed interfered with his religious rights – and relocation from the South 

Wing to another wing of the STU. As Judge Paley aptly recognized, however, 

R.T.'s request was jurisdictionally defective for failure to exhaust his 

administrative remedies and seek review in our court from that determination. 

See, e.g., Hospital Ctr. at Orange v. Guhl, 331 N.J. Super. 322, 329 (App. Div. 

2000) (recognizing the Appellate Division's exclusive jurisdiction of agency 

decisions). Nonetheless, in his initial decision and on reconsideration, the judge 

cogently rejected each argument on the merits. We discern no basis to disturb 

those determinations. 
4

A-4263-18T3

Finally, R.T.'s newly-minted argument that he is no longer a sexually 

violent predator under the SVPA was not raised before the trial court and, as 

such, we decline to address it on appeal. See Selective Ins. Co. of Am. v. 

Rothman, 208 N.J. 580, 586 (2012). We simply note such contention is better 

addressed at an annual review hearing. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-27.35. 

Affirmed.