SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-5620-17T1

CARL NORMAN,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT

OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________

Submitted October 31, 2019 – Decided

Before Judges Alvarez and DeAlmeida.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections.

Carl Norman, appellant pro se.

Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Rachel Simone Frey, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

November 21, 2019
2

A-5620-17T1

Plaintiff Carl Norman appeals from the July 11, 2018 decision of the 

Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request for a reduction in custody 

status from gang minimum to full minimum. We reverse and remand for 

reconsideration of Norman's administrative appeal.

I.

Norman is incarcerated at South Woods State Prison (SWSP) serving a 

thirty-one-year sentence with a thirty-year period of parole ineligibility for a 

1990 murder. The victim died of a brain injury and asphyxiation after being 

struck on the head with a wooden statue and strangled with an extension cord.

In June 2018, the SWSP Institutional Classification Committee (ICC)1

denied Norman's request to reduce his custody classification from gang 

minimum custody status to full minimum custody status.2 Although DOC's 

1

 The ICC is authorized to "[r]eview . . . inmate applications for change in 

custody status . . . ." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.1(a)(3). It is comprised of the 

administrator, associate administrator, or assistant superintendent; director of 

education; social work supervisor; correction major; supervising classification 

officer; or the designees of those officials. N.J.A.C. 10A:9-3.2(a)(1) to (5).

2

 An inmate assigned to gang minimum custody "may be assigned to activities 

or jobs which routinely require them to move outside the security perimeter of 

the correctional facility, but on the grounds of the facility and under continuous 

supervision of a custody staff member, civilian instructor or other employee 

authorized to supervise inmates." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.3(d). An inmate assigned 

to full minimum custody status can be assigned to "[w]ork details, jobs or 

(continued)
3

A-5620-17T1

reclassification tool, see N.J.A.C. 10A:9-2.2(a), indicated Norman was suitable 

for either gang or full minimum custody status, the ICC denied his request for 

full minimum custody status based on the field account of Norman's crime, 

which the ICC determined involved an "extreme level of violence . . . ."

Norman appealed the ICC decision to the Administrator of SWSP. He 

argued the ICC's written decision relied on an improper factor and contradicted 

what he was told when he appeared before the committee. According to 

Norman, an ICC member told him his request was denied solely because he had 

been convicted of murder.

An SWSP official, whose title is not readily apparent from the record, 

responded to Norman's appeal with a written description of what the ICC 

considered when it made its decision. The response did not address the 

substance of Norman's appeal. The following day, Norman submitted a second 

appeal, arguing the response he received did not address his substantive claims.

On July 11, 2018, the Administrator of SWSP issued the following 

response to Norman's second appeal:

Per your Progress Notes you were denied due to Field 

Account of your present offense/extreme violence in 

programs outside the main correctional facility, (on or off the grounds of the 

facility) with minimal supervision; and/or . . . [a] satellite unit or minimum 

security unit." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.3(e).
4

A-5620-17T1

commission of this offense. Please note that I []as the 

Administrator have no authority to override a denial by 

the ICC. As such you[r] appeal is denied. Please 

consider this your final appeal at this level.

This appeal followed. Norman makes the following arguments for our 

consideration:

THE DOC DECISION TO DENY APPELLANT FULL 

MINIMUM CUSTODY STATUS WAS ARBITRARY, 

CAPRICIOUS AND UNREASONABLE, 

UNSUPPORTED BY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE IN 

THE RECORD, AND NOT FAIRLY RENDERED.

A. THE DOC DECISION MISREPRESENTS THE 

FACTS SPECIFIC TO NORMAN.

B. THE DOC FAILED TO PROVIDE REASONING 

FOR THE DENIAL.

C. THE DOC FAILED TO CONSIDER ALL 

FACTORS.

In his reply brief, Norman argues:

THE RESPONSE JUSTIFICATION FOR DENYING 

NORMAN FULL MINIMUM CUSTODY DOES NOT 

COMPORT WITH STATE LAW AND SHOULD 

THEREFORE BE VACATED.3

3

 While this appeal was pending, the ICC undertook what it described as a 

"routine yearly review" of Norman's custody status. The ICC denied Norman's 

request for full minimum custody status. According to Norman, an ICC member 

told him regardless of any of the regulatory factors or favorable results of the 

reclassification tool, the ICC considers Norman ineligible for full minimum 

custody because he was convicted of murder. The June 28, 2019 decision of the 

(continued)
5

A-5620-17T1

II.

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 "defer to the specialized or technical 

expertise of the agency charged with administration of a regulatory system." 

K.K. v. Div. of Med. Assistance & Health Servs., 453 N.J. Super. 157, 160 (App. 

Div. 2018) (quoting In re Virtua-West Jersey Hosp., 194 N.J. 413, 422 (2008)). 

The Legislature has provided for the broad exercise of DOC's discretion in all 

matters regarding the administration of a prison facility. Russo v. N.J. Dep't of 

Corr., 324 N.J. Super. 576, 583 (App. Div. 1999).

The "[c]lassification of prisoners and the decision as to what privileges 

they will receive rests solely within the discretion of the Commissioner of the 

[DOC]." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 346 N.J. Super. 24, 30 (App. Div. 2001). 

An inmate has no liberty interest in a particular custody level. See Hluchen v. 

ICC states full minimum custody was denied based on the field account of 

Norman's crime. We granted Norman's motion to supplement the record with 

the June 28, 2019 ICC decision and his account of what transpired at the ICC.
6

A-5620-17T1

Fauver, 480 F. Supp. 103, 108 (D.N.J. 1979). However, DOC's decision to deny 

reduced custody status must not be arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or 

unsupported by credible evidence in the record. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 

81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980).

Under DOC regulations, "[c]hanges in inmate custody status within a 

particular correctional facility shall be made by the [ICC]." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-

4.4(a). The ICC applies criteria set forth in the regulations and the "objective 

classification instrument score . . . to determine whether an inmate is eligible 

for reduced custody consideration." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.1(b).

In considering whether to reduce an inmate's custody status, the ICC "shall 

take into consideration all relevant factors." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a). Those 

factors are: (1) "[f]ield account of the present offense;" (2) "[p]rior criminal 

record;" (3) "[p]revious incarcerations;" (4) "[c]orrectional facility adjustment;"

(5) "[r]esidential community program adjustment;" (6) "[t]he objective 

classification score;" (7) "[r]eports from professional custody staff;" (8) "[a]

conviction for a present or prior offense that resulted in a life sentence;" and (9) 

"[a]ny reason which, in the opinion of the Administrator and the ICC, relates to 

the best interests of the inmate or the safe, orderly operation of the correctional 

facility or the safety of the community or public at large." N.J.A.C. 10A:9-
7

A-5620-17T1

4.5(a)(1) to (9). Absent an express regulation to the contrary, the nature of an 

inmate's conviction, standing alone, may not permanently disqualify the inmate 

from consideration for full minimum custody status. Smith, 346 N.J. Super. at 

32.

DOC regulations do not address whether a decision by the ICC denying a 

reduction in custody status may be appealed to the Administrator of the 

correctional facility. As noted above, the SWSP Administrator informed 

Norman he lacked authority to reverse a decision by the ICC to deny full 

minimum custody status. However, DOC recently informed this court the 

Administrator of SWSP "has the authority to review and approve/disapprove any 

custody status recommended by the [ICC]." Smith v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., No. 

A-4552-17 (App. Div. Nov. 4, 2019) (slip op. at 4).

In addition, in February 2019, DOC "implement[ed] a rule exemption 

procedure to make clear that the Administrator or designee has the authority to 

review and approve/disapprove the ICC recommendations as to custody status, 

and that any denials of [f]ull [m]inimum are reviewed and approved/disapproved 

by Central Office [committee]."4 Id. at 5. DOC also informed the court it 

4

 It appears it has been DOC's practice in some instances to permit an inmate to 

appeal from an Administrator's review of an ICC custody status determination 

(continued)
8

A-5620-17T1

intended to commence rulemaking to codify internal appeal procedures. Id. at 

6. We held "DOC acknowledges – and we agree – that the classification review 

procedures utilized by the Administrator and the [COC] require rulemaking." 

Id. at 11. We directed DOC to codify within 120 days the procedures and 

standards used in their review of classification decisions. Id. at 11-12.

The Administrator's rejection of Norman's appeal contradicts DOC's 

interpretation of his authority to review the ICC's decision. In addition, the 

absence of regulations establishing the procedures, standards, and authority of 

COC to review custody decisions did not put Norman on notice of what appears 

to be a further available avenue of administrative review, should he be 

unsuccessful before the Administrator. For those reasons, we reverse the July 

11, 2018 decision of the Administrator and remand for the Administrator to 

reconsider Norman's appeal of the ICC's decision. On reconsideration, the 

Administrator shall consider all factors set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:9-4.5(a)(1) to 

(9) and other applicable regulations. In addition, DOC shall notify Norman of 

any available review by COC and the procedures for appealing to COC. Norman 

to the Central Office Committee (COC). The Department's regulations do not 

define the COC or its authority. We offer no opinion with respect to whether an 

exhaustion of administrative remedies requires an appeal of a custody status 

decision to COC.
9

A-5620-17T1

shall remain at his current custody status while proceedings on remand are 

pending, unless reduced by the agency.

Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We 

do not retain jurisdiction.