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 Jersey 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 New 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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." 

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-3583-16T3

parole ineligibility, as a result of his convictions for murder, 

robbery, and other offenses. Mejia appeals from a final 

determination of the Assistant Superintendent of NJSP, finding him 

guilty of committing prohibited acts *.102, attempting or planning 

escape, and *.704, perpetrating frauds, deceptions, confidence 

games, riots, or escape plots (frauds or deceptions) contrary to 

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1.1 We affirm.

On January 31, 2017, prison officials received information 

that Mejia was in possession of materials deemed to pose a threat 

to the security of the institution. Investigators from the Special 

Investigations Division (SID) conducted a search of Mejia's cell 

and discovered a hand-drawn diagram of what appeared to be a cell 

door 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 January 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 result in the most severe sanctions." N.J.A.C. 

10A:4-4.1(a). 
3 A-3583-16T3

grievances, and determined that Mejia did, 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 Department of Corrections 

(NJDOC) charged Mejia with prohibited act *.102, attempting or 

planning escape. He was served with a copy of the charge the 

following day. On February 2, 2017, the NJDOC also charged Mejia 

with prohibited act *.704, perpetrating frauds or deceptions, 

because he had misrepresented his ability to understand English.

On February 3, 2017, Mejia was served with 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 committing 

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 the charge. The hearing officer noted the serious nature 
4 A-3583-16T3

of the charge, pointing out that the drawing found in Mejia's cell 

included precise 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 found 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. The hearing officer 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 discipline, 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 accordance with the Administrative Code

and violated his right to due process. His arguments 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 Cty. 

Welfare Bd. v. N.J. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 93 N.J. 384, 390 (1983)). 

The court can "intervene only in those rare circumstances 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 prohibited 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 dispute 
6 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 where Mejia previously had been housed. Mejia 

provided a written explanation for 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 in an escape or attempted escape. 

We note that in answering Mejia's confrontation questions, SID 

Investigator Dalrymple stated that a drawing depicting the 

measurements of a security door in a prison, especially one that 

is a maximum-security 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 frauds or deceptions. Here, the NJDOC alleged 

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 sufficient 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 crossexamination of Dalrymple. 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, [have] you worked [on] dealing with 'Attempt to escape OR 

Planning an escape?" The third question was, "Is it true that all 

cell doors are secured by a dead bolt lock and breaker bar which 

can only be opened by [an] officer?" The hearing officer disallowed 

these 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 credibility are involved." McDonald, 139 N.J. at 198

(quoting Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 530 (1975)). However, the 

Administrative Code expressly allows a hearing officer to disallow 

any question that is irrelevant. N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.14(d)(2). 

Here, the hearing officer properly exercised the authority 

under the regulation. The questions sought information that was 

not relevant to whether Mejia was guilty of committing the 
8 A-3583-16T3

prohibited acts charged. The questions also had no bearing on any 

credibility issue. 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 receive 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, allow 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.