SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1658-18T1

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, 

Appellant, 

v. 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

____________________________

Submitted November 7, 2019 - Decided 

Before Judges Koblitz and Gooden Brown.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Manuel Rodriguez, appellant pro se. 

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Nicholas A. Sullivan, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

December 5, 2019
2

A-1658-18T1

Manuel Rodriguez is confined to South Woods State Prison, serving a 

lengthy prison term for attempted murder and other charges. He appeals from a 

September 4, 2018 final decision of the New Jersey Department of Corrections 

(DOC), finding him guilty of *.004, fighting with another person. N.J.A.C.

10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(i).

1

 As a result of the infraction, Green received 125 days of 

administrative segregation, twenty days loss of telephone, and twenty days loss 

of recreation privileges. We affirm the finding of the infraction, but vacate and 

remand the sanction for the DOC to reconsider and supply reasons for the new 

sanction imposed.

On August 29, 2018, Rodriguez's cellmate was found with two "swollen 

black eyes." Rodriguez was sent to the medical unit, where he was found to 

have small lacerations on his arms, right shoulder, left side, left shin, and right 

side of his back. At a hearing the following day, Rodriguez accepted the 

assistance of a counsel substitute. Rodriguez claimed his wounds were old and 

he did not know how his cellmate was injured. He rejected the opportunity to 

1

 Rodriguez complains that his copy of the hearing officer's findings is illegible. 

We were not able to read the copy sent to us by the DOC and requested a typed 

version, that was ultimately provided. It goes without saying that we cannot 

review a decision we cannot read. In the future we expect counsel for the DOC 

to provide typed copies of these hand-written reports.
3

A-1658-18T1

confront adverse witnesses or call his own witnesses. Counsel substitute denied 

Rodriguez engaged in fighting while alternatively requesting an adjudication of

the lesser offense of .013.

2

Our role in reviewing a prison disciplinary decision is limited. Figueroa 

v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). In general, 

the decision must not be disturbed on appeal unless it was arbitrary, capricious, 

or unreasonable, or lacked the support of "substantial credible evidence in the 

record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579–80 (1980). 

An adjudication of guilt of an infraction, however, must be supported by 

"substantial evidence." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a). "'Substantial evidence' means 

'such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a 

conclusion.'" Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192 (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. 

& Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). "Where there is substantial evidence in 

the record to support more than one regulatory conclusion, 'it is the agency's 

choice which governs.'" In re Vineland Chem. Co., 243 N.J. Super. 285, 307 

2

 Prohibited act .013 is "unauthorized physical contact with any person, such 

as, but not limited to, physical contact not initiated by a staff member, volunteer, 

or visitor." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(3)(ii).
4

A-1658-18T1

(App. Div. 1990) (quoting DeVitis v. N.J. Racing Comm'n, 202 N.J. Super. 484, 

491 (App. Div. 1985)). 

On appeal, Rodriguez argues the decision was contrary to the evidence. 

He states for the first time on appeal that his cellmate was hit with a basketball. 

Rodriguez reasserts that his own injuries were old. Rodriguez also claims that 

his counsel substitute was ineffective by suggesting he may have committed a 

lesser offense. 

The hearing officer (HO) found:

Inmate stated he didn't know what happened [to] his 

cell mate . . . . [He] did not leave his cell for [two] days 

[and] when he was discovered, he had black eyes. 

Inmate Rodriguez had minor scrap[e]s [and] scratches 

to his body. Both inmates gave different accounts of 

the incident [and] both were found not credible. Based 

on medical reports [and] investigation[,] [c]harge is

upheld.

We reject Rodriguez's due process arguments. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(b) 

states: "Evidence relied upon in making a determination shall be specified on 

the Adjudication of Disciplinary Report form." Pursuant to Avant v. Clifford, 

the DOC complied with its obligations. Rodriguez received notice of the 

charges, and was afforded assistance of a counsel substitute at the hearing. 67 

N.J. 496, 523, 536 (1975). He was able to see the evidence the HO relied upon 
5

A-1658-18T1

and the report setting forth the statements and reports relied upon to adjudicate 

the infraction. 

Rodriguez's argument that the decision was arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable is unsupported by the record. Two men shared a cell. They both 

incurred injuries consistent with a fight and offered no credible contrary 

explanation. Rodriguez's basketball injury explanation was not offered at the 

hearing and therefore we do not consider it. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 

62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973).

The HO, however, did not provide an adequate explanation for the 

sanctions imposed on Rodriguez. The HO stated: "Inmate needs to get back on 

track. Inmate needs to find appropriate ways to dealing [sic] with issues. Inmate 

warned about R/R.

[3]

" Although Rodriguez does not explicitly raise the 

adequacy of the reasons given for the sanction as a basis for reversal on appeal

before us, the DOC noted in its final determination that his "plea for leniency is 

denied." 

The 125 days administrative segregation and other sanctions imposed 

were not the minimum permitted for such an offense. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g). 

3

 We do not know the meaning of "R/R," but after inspecting the copy of the 

hand-written original provided, we believe "R/B" was hand-written, meaning,

perhaps, "repeat behavior."
6

A-1658-18T1

The DOC offered no explanation of how the sanctions were proportionate to the 

offense and the offender. The DOC must provide an inmate with individualized 

reasons for the specific sanctions imposed. Malacow v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 457 

N.J. Super. 87, 94–98 (App. Div. 2018); Mejia v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 446 N.J. 

Super. 369, 378–79 (App. Div. 2016). The DOC must articulate the factors 

considered in the imposition of sanctions so that we may perform our review of 

"whether a sanction is imposed for permissible reasons." Id. at 379; see also

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17(a) (providing factors to relevant individualized sanctions). 

For these reasons, we reverse the sanctions and remand for a re-imposition of 

sanctions with valid inmate- and offense-specific reasons. 

Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. We do not retain 

jurisdiction.