SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-2947-22 

AGUSTIN GARCIA, 

 Appellant, 

v. 

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent. 

___________________________

Argued August 27, 2024 – Decided September 10, 2024 

Before Judges Gooden Brown and Marczyk. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections. 

Agustin Garcia, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, 

argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, 

Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen, 

Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. 

Josephson, 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-2947-22

Appellant Agustin Garcia, an East Jersey State Prison (EJSP) inmate, 

appeals from final decisions by the New Jersey Department of Corrections 

(DOC) denying his requests for credit for wage deductions from his inmate trust 

account, which deductions he claims are in excess of the allowable amount and 

are impermissible. Specifically, Garcia appeals from denials dated February 28 

and March 14, 2023.1 We affirm. 

By way of background, N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.7(h) authorizes DOC to deduct 

payment for photocopying legal materials directly from a non-indigent inmate's 

trust account.2 If the balance in the non-indigent inmate's account is overdrawn 

or insufficient to pay the cost of photocopying legal materials, the correctional 

facility shall "[c]harge the nonindigent inmate's account the amount owed the 

correctional facility," N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.7(c)(2), and be reimbursed by 

"[r]emov[ing] from the nonindigent inmate's account any amount of funds in 

excess of the one[-]time monthly amount of $15.00 after deductions to pay court 

1

 In an amended notice of appeal filed July 19, 2023, Garcia added a DOC 

response dated May 10, 2023. However, the May 10, 2023, response was neither 

the subject of an administrative appeal, included in the statement of items 

comprising the record on appeal, see R. 2:5-4(b), nor the subject of a motion to 

supplement the administrative record, see R. 2:5-5(b). We therefore decline to 

consider it. 

2

 N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.5(a) requires DOC to "provide photocopies of legal material 

. . . to inmates at the rate of $.10 per page[.]" 
3 A-2947-22

ordered penalty assessments, restitutions, fines or other revenue obligations[,]" 

N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.7(h)(1). 

In 2023, Garcia owed approximately $23,000 in legal photocopying loans. 

On February 25, 2023, Garcia submitted in inmate inquiry form stating: 

This is to complain about the fact that since I started 

working in [the] kitchen I never enjoyed one cent of my 

earning bec[a]use instead of deducting the percentage 

dictated by 10A you are deducting 100% . . . , leaving 

me with the[] $15.00 minimum I would receive whether 

I work or not. This violate [sic] my rights. Please take 

corrective action retroactively. 

 

On February 28, 2023, an EJSP employee responded that "[l]oans, fines, 

and/or obligations are paid back once funds are available. Payroll has a 33% 

charge to pay back loans, fines, and/or obligations." In a grievance form of the 

same date, Garcia replied that the response was "incorrect" because DOC could 

only deduct a maximum of 33% of the funds in his account to pay towards his 

obligations, including his photocopying loans. Garcia stated that, instead, DOC 

was "deducting 100%" throughout his "entire period of . . . employment as [a] 

kitchen worker," leaving him a "monthly balance of $15.00." He requested a 

"recalculation" and a "credit" for the allegedly excessive deductions. On March 

13, 2023, Shaletta Smalls, another EJSP employee, responded to Garcia's 

grievance, stating that "[t]he Business Office doesn't control the automatic 
4 A-2947-22

deductions for [his] obligations" and "[o]nce all [his] obligations are fulfilled 

[he] won't have any deductions." 

On March 14, 2023, Garcia administratively appealed the initial response, 

reasserting his claim that DOC could only deduct a maximum of 33% of the 

funds in his account to pay his obligations, including his photocopying loans, 

and that the deduction of "100% of [his] salary or wages month after month" 

violated "10A and also . . . [his] equal protection [rights] under the law 

guaranteed by U.S. and New Jersey constitutions, whereas, [he was] treated 

different to prisoners or individual[s] similarly situated." He again requested 

that DOC credit his account "retroactively." On the same date, Smalls 

responded to Garcia's appeal, stating: 

After reviewing your account, we noticed that you are 

paying back loans for copies. All loans are paid back 

at 100% at the time you receive funds in your account. 

Please review your statement carefully and you will see 

the loans and fines being deducted. 

In this ensuing appeal, Garcia reprises his claim that DOC has been 

deducting an excessive amount of funds from his inmate trust account and seeks 

retroactive credits. We find no merit to Garcia's contentions. 

Our role in reviewing an administrative agency decision is limited. 

Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010); In 
5 A-2947-22

re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). Such decisions carry with them a 

"presumption of reasonableness[,]" Lisowski v. Borough of Avalon, 442 N.J. 

Super. 304, 330 (App. Div. 2015), (citation omitted), and will be disturbed "only 

if it is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable or it is not supported by substantial 

credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 

N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action 

was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the person challenging the 

administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 

2006).

To determine whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or 

unreasonable, we consider: 

(1) whether the agency's action violates express or

implied legislative policies, that is, did the agency 

follow the law; (2) whether the record contains 

substantial evidence to support the findings on which 

the agency based its action; and (3) whether in applying 

the legislative policies to the facts, the agency clearly 

erred in reaching a conclusion that could not reasonably 

have been made on a showing of the relevant factors. 

[In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482 (2007) (quoting Mazza 

v. Bd. of Tr., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 143 N.J. 22, 

25 (1995)).] 

As such, we are not "relegated to a mere rubber-stamp of agency action," but 

rather "are constrained to engage in a 'careful and principled consideration of 
6 A-2947-22

the agency record and findings.'" Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 

197, 204 (App. Div. 2000) (citations omitted). 

We defer to the agency's interpretation of regulations that are "within its 

implementing and enforcing responsibility[.]" Utley v. Bd. of Review, 194 N.J. 

534, 551 (2008) (quoting In re Appeal by Progressive Cas. Ins. Co., 307 N.J. 

Super. 93, 102 (App. Div. 1997)). However, we are "in no way bound by the 

agency's . . . determination of a strictly legal issue." Mayflower Sec. Co. v. 

Bureau of Sec., 64 N.J. 85, 93 (1973). Thus, we may intervene when an agency's 

decision rests upon a misinterpretation of a regulation. Mazza, 143 N.J. at 25. 

Here, we discern no basis to intervene. DOC's denial of Garcia's requests 

was neither arbitrary nor capricious but comported with the law. Contrary to 

Garcia's claim, there is no limitation on the percentage of funds DOC may 

deduct from an inmate's account to pay outstanding legal copying loans as long 

as $15 per month remains in the inmate's account. See N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.7(h).3 

3

 N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.7(h) applies to non-indigent inmates like Garcia. In his 

merits brief, Garcia acknowledges that he is not an indigent inmate, having 

earned wages "working in [the] kitchen." See N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2 (defining an 

"indigent" inmate as one "who has no funds in his or her account and is not able 

to earn inmate wages due to prolonged illness or any other uncontrollable 

circumstances, and who has been verified as having no outside source from 

which to obtain funds"). However, in his reply brief, for the first time on appeal, 

Garcia claims indigency. It is improper for a party to use a reply brief to raise 
7 A-2947-22

In his repeated submissions to DOC, Garcia concedes that he was only left with 

a "monthly balance of $15.00." Although DOC is limited in the amount it can 

deduct from an inmate's account to pay towards certain debts and obligations, 

no such limitation applies to legal copying loans. See N.J.S.A. 30:4-92 (limiting 

withdrawals from inmate accounts "in an amount not to exceed one-third of the 

inmate's total income, as may be required to pay any assessment, restitution or 

fine ordered as part of any sentence," or "to pay costs and fees charged or owing" 

for any medical care provided during the inmate's incarceration in accordance 

with N.J.S.A. 30:7E-2). 

For the first time on appeal, Garcia asserts that DOC retaliated against 

him for complaining about his deductions by removing him from his prison job 

and changing his housing status.4 He also claims DOC violated his due process 

rights by providing untimely and unresponsive responses to his inquiry and 

grievance. "Normally, we do not consider issues not raised below at an 

administrative hearing." In re Stream Encroachment Permit, Permit No. 0200-

an issue for the first time or enlarge an argument asserted in the moving brief. 

See, e.g., State v. Smith, 55 N.J. 476, 488 (1970); L.J. Zucca, Inc. v. Allen Bros. 

Wholesale Distribs. Inc., 434 N.J. Super. 60, 87 (App. Div. 2014). 

4

 Notably, included in Garcia's appendix is his voluntary "resign[ation] from 

[his] kitchen job detail" because of medical conditions and to facilitate a housing 

"relocation." 
8 A-2947-22

04-0002.1 FHA, 402 N.J. Super. 587, 602 (App. Div. 2008) (citing Bryan v. 

Dep't of Corr., 258 N.J. Super. 546, 548 (App.Div.1992)). Generally, we decline 

to consider such issues unless they go to jurisdiction or concern matters of great 

public interest. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234 (1973) 

(citation omitted). Neither is implicated here. Even if we considered the

arguments, we are satisfied Garcia received all due process protections to which 

he was entitled, and his claims to the contrary are unsupported. 

To the extent we have not addressed any of Garcia's arguments, it is 

because they are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written 

opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

Affirmed.