SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-1999-22 

LAQUANE CURRY, 

 Appellant, 

v.

NEW JERSEY 

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent. 

___________________

 

Submitted September 12, 2024 – Decided October 8, 2024 

Before Judges Sabatino and Jacobs. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections. 

Laquane Curry, appellant, pro se. 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Dorothy M. Rodriguez, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-1999-22

Incarcerated person, Laquane Curry, appeals the January 17, 2023 final 

agency decision of the Department of Corrections (DOC) upholding a hearing 

officer's determination that he committed prohibited act *.803/*.002, attempting 

to assault any person, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(1)(ii), (xxiv). We 

affirm. 

We derive facts from the DOC "preliminary incident," "special custody," 

"disciplinary," and "use of force" reports, adjudication records, appellant's oral 

and written statements, and the parties' respective pleadings. There is no video 

or audio recording of the incident in the record. 

On January 9, 2023, Curry was housed at South Woods State Prison. In 

a purported effort to receive medical attention for chest pain, Curry asked 

Lieutenant J. Inman "what he need[ed] to do to get at custody staff and get them 

into his cell." With this, Lieutenant Inman notified medical staff as to the

medical emergency. Because Curry was housed in the Emergency Confinement 

Unit (ECU) due to his "assaultive history," prison protocol required medical 

personnel to respond and enter Curry's cell. 

A team of correction officers was assembled and prepared to enter the cell, 

telling Curry to "cuff up." Curry remained on his bed, refusing to comply with 

commands of the officers and accompanying medical staff. Wary of a perceived 
3 A-1999-22

excessive number of officers who arrived in response, Curry stated he no longer 

wanted medical attention. Notwithstanding Curry's change of mind, officers 

proceeded to enter his cell. The first to enter was Officer Velez. As Velez made 

entry, Curry purportedly jumped from his bed, charged and "swung at [him] with 

[a] clenched fist." In response, Velez struck Curry in the mouth with a closed 

fist. Other officers then brought Curry to the ground and placed him in 

restraints. They then transported Curry to a medical unit "where he was 

evaluated and received [an] EKG." 

Both Officer Velez and Curry incurred injuries from their encounter. 

Velez sustained injury to his right hand and left knee. In a DOC "special" 

medical report, it was noted that Curry had cuts and swelling to his "left top and 

bottom lips," "redness and scratch" on his left shoulder, and "chest redness." 

Aside from these injuries, the report reads, "[i]nmate has no other cuts, scrapes, 

bruises, or bleeding . . . at this time." Curry was then "medically cleared for 

constant watch." 

 The next day, prison authorities served Curry with an "attempting to 

assault" disciplinary charge and referred the case to a hearing officer. At a 

hearing before Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO) Zimmerman, Curry pleaded 

not guilty to having committed the charged prohibited act. Substitute counsel 
4 A-1999-22

for Curry submitted a two-page written statement and requested leniency. In his 

statement, Curry acknowledged telling Lieutenant Inman he was having chest 

pains. However, he claimed more than twenty officers arrived in response, 

whereupon he turned around and walked toward a window in his cell. Officers 

then pushed their way in. Curry contended that Officer Velez hit him in the 

mouth and other officers kicked him as he lay prone for over a two-minute 

period. He also claimed that the number of responding officers was excessive 

and in violation of prison protocol. In testimony, Curry alleged he was assaulted 

and that his cell "door should've never been opened." Curry declined the 

opportunity to call witnesses on his behalf or to confront adverse witnesses via 

cross-examination. 

Five correction officers submitted a countervailing rendition of events in 

the form of "special custody" reports. Specifically, the officers cast Curry as 

"combative" and the "aggressor," maintaining he was "not respons[ive]" to 

verbal commands to be cuffed and brought for medical examination. Also 

submitted to the DHO were five "use of force" reports, a preliminary report, and 

a disciplinary report. Those reports uniformly described Curry as the aggressor 

and attested to the need for additional manpower based on his assaultive history 

within the institution. 
5 A-1999-22

DHO Zimmerman found Curry guilty of committing a prohibited act and 

assessed a sanction of 210 days in the "restorative housing unit" or 

Administrative Segregation (ADSEG), 120 days' loss of commutation time, and 

fifteen days' loss of core privileges. Based on Curry's allegations of protocol 

violation, the DHO referred the matter to the Special Investigations Division for 

further investigation. 

DHO Zimmerman's decision was reviewed by Assistant Superintendent 

Griffith. Griffith upheld Zimmerman's decision, specifically including findings 

regarding the DOC's compliance with procedural safeguards, presumably the 

number of officers assigned to extract Curry from his cell and bring him to the 

medical unit. Griffith also upheld the sanctions imposed and the declination of 

leniency. 

 On appeal, Curry raises a single argument in his initial merits brief: 

POINT I 

The Plaintiff Argues [t]he New Jersey 

Department [o]f Corrections Violated 

Procedure [a]nd Protocol [i]n [t]he Guilt 

Finding. 

 
6 A-1999-22

In a reply brief, Curry raises a second argument: 

 POINT [II] 

THE DEPARTMENT'S FINAL 

DECISION SHOULD BE REVERSED 

DUE TO THE NON-EXISTENCE OF 

THE WRITER FOR THE 

DISCIPLINARY REPORT AND 

PLAINTIFF'S LACK OF ABILITY TO 

CONFRONT THIS INDIVIDUAL. 

Appellate review of a final decision made by the DOC is 

"limited." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 

2010). As we have long recognized, "[p]risons are dangerous places, and the 

courts must afford appropriate deference and flexibility to administrators trying 

to manage this volatile environment." Russo v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 324 N.J. 

Super. 576, 584 (App. Div. 1999). "We [therefore] defer to an agency decision, 

and do not reverse unless it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or not 

supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't 

of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010); see also In re Stallworth, 

208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011) ("A reviewing court 'may not substitute its own 

judgement for the agency's, even though the court might have reached a different 

result.'" (quoting In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 483 (2007))). This customary 

deference stems from the "[w]ide discretion [ ] afforded to administrative 
7 A-1999-22

decisions because of an agency's specialized knowledge." In re Request to 

Modify Prison Sentences, 242 N.J. 357, 390 (2020). 

Applying these well-settled principles, we affirm the DOC's final agency 

decision. Here, the DHO relied on sufficient and substantial credible evidence 

to conclude that appellant refused reasonable steps taken to address his health 

complaints. As documented, the presence of additional officers was needed 

based on appellant's history of violent infractions and his housing in a 

heightened security "Emergency Confinement Unit." In that regard, reasonable 

steps implemented to ensure the safety of all concerned -- including the 

assignment of extra personnel -- are not within the province of an inmate to 

unilaterally dictate or refuse. This is particularly so when such steps are taken 

for the ultimate benefit of the inmate, as was the circumstance here. Curry 

points to no provision of the New Jersey Administrative Code that was 

transgressed during the incident in question. Accordingly, we are satisfied that 

the DOC's findings were based on substantial reliable evidence and that the 

sanctions imposed were proportionate to the offense found. 

In his reply brief, Curry advances a second argument. Our case law does 

not allow an appellant to raise a new argument in reply. See State v. Smith, 55 

N.J. 476, 488 (1970) (stating that it is improper to raise new issues in a reply 
8 A-1999-22

brief). Nonetheless, for purposes of completeness, we set forth verbatim the 

substance of Curry's second argument in which he refers to himself in the third 

person: 

In the present matter[,] Curry argues[ ] the individual 

named on the disciplinary report was not present for the 

incident nor is listed on the use of force, preliminary 

report[,] or any of the supplemental reports at all. Yet, 

the DHO finding of guilt is due to accusations by others 

who did not complete the required form. N.J.A.C. 

on10A:4-9.1. 

[(Emphases added) (citations reformatted).] 

 Section 10A:4-9.1 of the New Jersey Administrative Code reads: 

(a) When a violation of a prohibited act as identified in 

N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4, Inmate Prohibited Acts, has 

occurred, the DOC staff member or the staff of a 

contracted vendor who witnessed it or who has 

probable cause to believe that a prohibited act has

occurred shall prepare Form 259 Disciplinary Report

and forward it to the appropriate correctional 

supervisor. 

(b) The correctional supervisor may change the report 

to an On-The-Spot Disciplinary Report/Adjudication or 

forward it to the Disciplinary Hearing Officer or 

Adjustment Committee for further disposition. 

 Curry does not identify the individual(s) who purportedly made 

accusations against him without completing the proper disciplinary report form. 

Our examination of the record reflects that all evidence considered against Curry 
9 A-1999-22

consisted of reports prepared by identified DOC officers and staff with direct 

knowledge of the incident concerned. Thus, we reject this argument. 

To the extent we have not addressed them, all other arguments raised by 

appellant lack sufficient merit to warrant discussion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D), (E). 

 Affirmed.