SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A - 3583
- 16T3

RIGOBERTO MEJIA, Appellant,

v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.

____________________________________________

Submitted July 9, 2018

– Decided July 23, 2018 Before Judges Yannotti and Haas. On appeal from the New J ersey Department of Corrections. Rigoberto Mejia, appellant pro se. Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Kai W. Marshall
- Otto, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM Rigoberto Mejia is an inmate at N ew Jersey State Prison (NJSP), where he is serving a life sentence, with forty years of NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court . " A lthough 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 - 3583
- 16T3

parole ineligibility, as a result of his convictions for murde r, robbery, and other offenses. Mejia appeals from a final determination of the Assistant Superintendent o f NJSP, finding him guilty of committing prohibited acts *.102, attempting or planning escape, and *.704, perpetrating frauds, d eceptions, confidence
games, riots, or escape plots (fraud s or deception s ) contrary to N.J.A.C. 10A:4
- 4.1. 1 We affirm.
On Janua ry 31, 2017, prison officials received information that Mejia was in possession of materials deemed to pose a threat
to t he security of the institution. Investigators from the Special Investigation s Division (SID) conducted a search of Mejia's cell and dis covered a hand
- drawn diagram of what appeared to be a cell
d oor complete with measurements. The SID investigator noted that the drawing appeared to be of a cell door from units in the West Compound , where Mejia was housed from Janua ry 2011 through February
2015. The following day, the investigator attempted to question Mejia about the drawing, but he indicated that he did not understand the English language. The investigator reviewed Mejia's past grievances and the interviews conducted regarding those

1 "Prohibited acts preceded by an asterisk (*) are considered the most serious and resu lt in the most severe sanctions. " N.J.A.C. 10A:4
- 4.1(a).3 A - 3583
- 16T3

gr ievances, and determined that Mejia di d, in fact, understand English. The investigator determined that by misrepresenting his ability to understand English, Mejia had attempted to circumvent the investigation. On February 1, 2017, the New Jersey Departm ent of Corrections (NJDOC) charged Mejia with prohibited act *.102, attempting or planning escape. He was served with a copy o f the charge the following day. On February 2, 2017, the NJ DOC also charged M ejia with prohibited act *.704, perpetrating fraud s o r d eception s , because he had misrepresented his ability to understand English. On February 3, 2017, Mejia was served w ith a copy of the *.704 charge. Mejia pled not guilty to both charges.
A hearing first was scheduled for February 3, 2017. However, the hearing was adjourned several times to obtain additional information, translate a statement, consider Mejia's request for a polygraph, allow Mejia an opportunity for confrontation, and
prepare a written report. The hearing concluded on February 23,
2017. The hearing officer found Mejia guilty of c ommitting prohibited act *.102 . The hearing officer noted that Mejia had denied guilt , claiming he never planned an escape. The hearing officer determined, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support th e charge. The hearing officer noted the serious nature4 A - 3583
- 16T3

of the charge , pointing out that the drawing found in Mejia's cell included preci se measurements of a cell door and posed a possible threat to the security of NJSP if possessed by inmates. The hearing officer also found Mejia guilty of committing prohibited act *.704 . The hearing officer noted that Mejia had denied guilt and stated throughout the hearing that he does not understand English. However, based on institutional reports, the hearing officer f ound that Mejia had deliberately misrepresented his ability to comprehend English during his interview with the SID investigator . For the *.102 charge, the hearing officer imposed the following sanctions: 180 days of administrative segregation, the
loss of 365 days of commutation time, and the loss of thirty days of recreational privileges. T he hearing offi cer imposed the same sanctions for the *.704 charge. On February 26, 2017, Mejia filed an administrative appeal. On March 9, 2017, David Richards, the Assistant Superintendent of NJSP, issued a final decision, concluding that the proceedings had been conducted in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Administrative Code pertaining to inmate disciplin e, and there was sufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's decision. The Assistant Superintendent rejected Mejia's request to suspend or downgrade the sanctions. Mejia's appeal to this court followed.5 A - 3583
- 16T3

On appeal, Mejia argues that the hearing officer did not conduct the proceeding in accordan ce with the Administrative Code and violated his right to due process. His argume nts are entirely without merit. Judicial review of final decisions of an administrative agency is "severely limited." George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Turnpike Auth. , 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994) (citing Gloucester C ty. Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n , 93 N.J. 384, 390 (1983)). The court can "intervene only in those rare cir cumstances in which
an agency action is clearly inconsistent with its statutory mission or with other State policy." Ibid. Where, as here, the court reviews a final decision of the NJDOC in a prisoner disciplinary matter, we consider whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the NJDOC's decision that the inmate committed the p rohibited act and whether, in making that decision, the NJDOC followed the regulations governing the disciplinary process, which were adopted to afford the inmates procedural due process. McDonald v. Pinchak , 139 N.J. 188, 194
- 95 (1995); Jacobs v. Stephens , 139 N.J. 212, 220
- 22 (1995). Mejia first argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the hearing officer's finding that he committed prohibited
act *.102, attempting or planning escape . Mejia does not dispute6 A - 3583
- 16T3

that during a search of his cell, the SID investigators found a hand

— drawn diagram of what appeared to be a cell door, complete with measurements. The drawing depicted the doors to cells in units of the prison whe re Mejia previously had been housed . Mejia provided a written explanation fo r his drawing . Among other things, he claimed he made the drawing because of certain sexual fantasies . The hearing officer rejected Mejia's explanation, finding that the drawing could be used i n an escape or attempted escape. We note that in answering Mejia's confrontation questions, SID
I nvestigator Dalrymple stated that a drawing depicting the measurements of a security door in a prison, e specially one that is a maximum

- secur ity institution, raises serious security

concerns . We conclude there is substantial evidence supporting the
*.102 charge. Mejia also argues there was insufficient evidence to support
the hearing officer's finding that he committed prohibited act *.704, perpetrating fraud s or deception s . Here, the NJDOC al leged that Mejia refused to answer questions in the investigation, claiming he did not understand English. The hearing officer accepted the staff reports and determined that Mejia had misrepresented his ability to understand English . We conclude there is s ufficient evidence to support the charge under *.704.7 A - 3583
- 16T3

Mejia further argues he was denied his right to confront Dalrymple. The record shows that Mejia initially presented five written questions for purposes of confrontation or cross

examination of Dalrympl e . The hearing officer disallowed three of
those questions. The first of those questions was, "How long have you been working for the [SID]?" The second question was, "During [the time you have worked in the SID], how many cases, not counting this one, [h ave] you worked [on] dealing with 'Attempt to escape OR Planning an escape?" The third question was, "Is it true that all
cell door s are secured by a dead bolt lock and breaker bar which can only be opened by [an] officer?" The hearing officer d isallowed
t hese questions because they were "deemed irrelevant." In a disciplinary hearing, an inmate has a limited right to
confront and cross
- examine witnesses when "necessary for an adequate presentation of the evidence, particularly when serious issues of credib ility are involved." McDonald , 139 N.J. at 19 8 (quoting Avant v. Clifford , 67 N.J. 496, 530 (1975)). However, t he Administrative Code expressly allow s a hearing officer to disallow any question that is irrelevant. N.J.A.C. 10A:4
- 9.14(d)(2). Here, t he hearing officer properly exercised the authority under the regulation. The questions sought information that was not relevant to whether Mejia was guilty of committing the8 A - 3583
- 16T3

prohibited acts charged. The questions also had no bearing on any credibility iss ue. The hearing officer's decision to disallow the three questions was not a mistaken exercise of discretion. Mejia also contends the hearing was not held within the time required by N.J.A.C. 10A:4

- 9.8 (c). The regulation provides that an inmate shall rece ive a hearing on a disciplinary charge within three days after placement in "Prehearing Disciplinary Housing [PDH] ," including weekends and holidays, "unless there are exceptional circumstances, unavoidable delays, or reasonable postponements." Ibid.
The record shows that Mejia was placed in PDH on February 1, 2018. The hearing was not held within three days thereafter. However, the hearing was postponed to obtain additional information, translate a statement, consider Mejia's request for a polygraph, all ow time for confrontation or cross

- examination, and prepare a report. The postponements were "reasonable ." Therefore, the hearing was held within the time permitted by
N.J.A.C. 10A:4
- 9.8(c). Affirmed.