SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-1396-18T4

DAVID NASH,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

_____________________________

Submitted June 25, 2019 – Decided July 10, 2019

Before Judges Rothstadt and Suter.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

David Nash, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Melissa H. Raksa, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.
2

A-1396-18T4

David Nash, an inmate at Northern State Prison (NSP), filed a property 

claim for lost, damaged or destroyed personal property. He appeals a final 

decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) that denied his property claim. 

For reasons that follow, we reverse and remand.

After Nash was released from a stay in the Medical Clinic at NSP where 

he had been from May 13, 2018, he filed an inmate claim for lost, damaged or 

destroyed personal property, known as Form 943-I. The claim alleged that on 

May 10, 2018, an officer on the prison wing where Nash was assigned

confiscated his "[fifteen] inch Clear Tunes" television on grounds that he had no

proof of ownership. Nash listed "the unit rep, cell 102," as a witness to the 

confiscation, but did not have the name of this person or "State number." His

claim also alleged that other items had been stolen by his "cell mate, top bunk," 

in cell 119, while Nash was staying in the Clinic. He included a handwritten list 

of electronic, food and cosmetic items that he said were taken, but did not 

include any receipts for the items. After he filed his claim, Nash obtained copies 

of sales receipts from DOC through an Open Public Records Act request. These 

included a receipt from 2011 for the television. Nash alleged he submitted these 

receipts to the Claims Committee at NSP that was reviewing his claim, but the 

State claims these were not provided. 
3

A-1396-18T4

An inventory of Nash's property, known as an IIS-1M Inmate Inventory 

Sheet, was prepared when he transferred from his assigned unit to the Clinic.

See N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.6(a) (providing that this form "shall be used to itemize 

all personal property in the inmate's possession upon admission, while 

incarcerated and upon transfer"). It was signed twice by Nash: once with no 

date and once with the date of May 24, 2018, when he was released from the 

Clinic.1 This inventory does not list the television, but does list "headphones" 

and various other clothes, food and cosmetic items.

Nash's claim was referred to a DOC lieutenant "for investigation and 

submission to the Claims Committee for review." The investigation report dated 

September 21, 2018, recommended denial of the claim because there was "[n]o 

evidence . . . that inmate exercised care in preventing loss by securing [his]

property or that staff negligence was [the] cause of the claim." It listed three 

reasons in support of the recommendation: "[n]o receipts or appraisal forms 

attached . . . [n]o proof of negligence on the part of the staff . . . [and the b]urden 

of proof lies with [the inmate]." The Business Manager of NSP recommended 

 

1 The copies provided by Nash and the State do not show the year. The form 

uses the dates "5/13/1" and "5/24/1." We surmise it is for 2018 because both 

parties include the same form and it provides that he was being transferred from 

the "C1W" wing to the infirmary. 
4

A-1396-18T4

disapproval of the claim because Nash had not attached any receipts or appraisal 

forms and because there was "[n]o proof of negligence on the part of NSP staff." 

On October 12, 2018, the NSP Administrator accepted the recommendation and 

disapproved the claim. 

On appeal, Nash raises the following issues:

POINT ONE

THE STATE AGENCY'S ADMINISTRATIVE 

DECISION WAS ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS, AND 

UNREASONABLE IN LIGHT OF THE SUFFICIENT 

CREDIBLE EVIDENCE PRESENT IN THE 

RECORD, IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, 

STATUTE, AND REGULATION.

POINT TWO

THE STATE AGENCY FAILED TO MAKE 

REQUIRED SPECIFIC FINDINGS FROM WHICH 

TO INFORM INTERESTED PARTIES AND THE 

REVIEWING TRIBUNAL OF THE BASIS FOR THE 

DECISION IN ORDER TO CONDUCT A PROPER 

REVIEW, IN VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, 

STATUTE, AND REGULATION.

POINT THREE

THE STATE AGENCY'S FACTUAL CONCLUSIONS 

ARE SO WIDE OFF THE MARK AS TO BE 

MANIFESTLY MISTAKEN GIVING RISE TO A 

SENSE OF WRONGNESS, IN VIOLATION OF DUE 

PROCESS, STATUTE, AND REGULATION.
5

A-1396-18T4

POINT FOUR

THE STATE AGENCY'S ADJUDICATION IS 

INCONSISTENT WITH LAW AND THE POLICIES 

BEHIND THE LEGISLATION, IN VIOLATION OF 

DUE PROCESS, STATUTE, AND REGULATION.

Our review of an administrative agency's final decision is limited. 

Kadonsky v. Lee, 452 N.J. Super. 198, 201-02 (App. Div. 2017) (citing In re 

Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)). "We will not reverse an agency's 

judgment unless we find the decision to be 'arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable, or not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as 

a whole.'" Id. at 202 (quoting Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194). We are not, however, 

bound by the "agency's 'interpretation of a statute or its determination of a 

strictly legal issue.'" Ibid. (quoting L.A. v. Bd. of Educ., 221 N.J. 192, 204 

(2015)).

Prior to September 4, 2018, N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(a) provided that an inmate 

must file a claim for lost, damaged or destroyed property by submitting Form 

943-I. Following submission: 

(b) The Administrator or designee shall submit Form 

943-I to the Director of Custody Operations or designee 

for investigation and preparation of a report. The 

investigation conducted by the Director of Custody 

Operations or designee shall consist of, but not be 

limited to:
6

A-1396-18T4

1. Obtaining statements from the inmate, witnesses and 

correctional facility staff; and

2. Verifying that the inmate was authorized to have and 

did in fact, possess the personal property named in the 

claim.

3. Verification of possession of lost, damaged or 

destroyed personal property may be made by review of 

applicable documentation such as the IIS-1M Inmate 

Inventory Sheet maintained by the correctional facility

(see N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11). 

[N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b).]2

Other regulations also set forth factors to be considered in recommending 

or disapproving a claim. See N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2. These include whether there 

was neglect by the facility and whether the inmate submitted sufficient 

information about the items claimed. Ibid.

Nash made two claims: that an officer confiscated his television on May 

10, 2018, and that other items of his were taken after he was transferred to the 

Clinic on May 13, 2018. There is an inventory of his property on Form IIS-1M 

dated May 13. 

 

2 We cite to the regulation as it appeared when Nash filed his claim. This 

regulation was amended effective September 4, 2018. See 50 N.J.R. 1964(a) 

(Sept. 4, 2018). None of the amendments affects our analysis.
7

A-1396-18T4

This inventory does not address what property Nash had on May 10 when 

he alleges his television was confiscated. There is no indication that a statement 

was taken from the officer alleged to be involved. See N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b)(1)

(providing that the investigation "shall" consist of "[o]btaining statements from 

. . . correctional facility staff"). The inventory would not provide verification 

of his property as allowed by N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1(b)(3) because it was made on 

May 13, 2018, three days after the confiscation allegedly occurred. We do not 

know if there were any prior inventories where the television might have been 

listed. N.J.A.C. 10A:1-11.11 (providing that a signed IIS-1M "shall become a 

permanent part of the inmate's classification folder"). The DOC's decision to 

deny this portion of the claim did not reveal that the factors under N.J.A.C. 

10A:2-6.2 were reviewed, but instead, it summarily concluded there was no 

negligence by the staff and no receipts. 

Nash claimed that his cellmate took things when his property was packed 

up on May 13, 2018. The IIS-1M inventory is signed twice by Nash. One

signature is not dated and the other is dated May 24, 2018. The DOC does not 

explain if the first signature was Nash's confirmation that the inventory was 

accurate. If so, that might undercut his claim that items were taken because it 

could be used as verification of what property he had on that date. See N.J.A.C. 
8

A-1396-18T4

10A: 2-6.1(b)(3). If the inventory was signed only on May 24, it simply would 

be confirming what he received on May 24 without verifying what property he 

had when he transferred to the Clinic. There is no indication that any statements 

were taken from his cellmate or all the factors under N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2 were 

considered. 

The DOC did not comply with regulations N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 and 6.2. 

We are constrained to remand this for an investigation consistent with the 

regulations. 

Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.