SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY 

 APPELLATE DIVISION 

 DOCKET NO. A-0856-22 

VAUGHN SIMMONS, 

 Appellant, 

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT 

OF CORRECTIONS, 

 Respondent. 

___________________________

Submitted September 25, 2024 – Decided October 3, 2024 

Before Judges DeAlmeida and Puglisi. 

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of 

Corrections. 

Vaughn Simmons, appellant pro se. 

Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for 

respondent (Janet Greenberg Cohen, Assistant Attorney 

General, of counsel; Dorothy 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE 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-0856-22

 Appellant Vaughn Simmons appeals from the October 16, 2023 final 

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

confiscation of videos he purchased through a DOC-approved inmate kiosk 

system for delivery by email. We affirm. 

I.

 Simmons is an inmate at Northern State Prison. In March and April 2022, 

he ordered forty-three thirty-second videos through the JPay inmate kiosk 

system for delivery to him by email. According to Simmons, the videos depict 

non-nude cultural dancing. 

On July 15, 2022, Simmons submitted an inquiry to DOC staff stating that 

he had not received the videos. Although he did not receive a confiscation notice 

from DOC, JPay informed Simmons that the agency had confiscated the videos. 

Simmons requested an explanation for the confiscation and asked whether he 

would be compensated for the videos or have them returned to him upon his 

release from incarceration. 

On July 22, 2022, a DOC Lieutenant informed Simmons in writing that 

the videos were confiscated because they "violated the [DOC] policy . . . of 

obscenity as well as the Terms and Conditions of Use by JPay." The decision 

provided definitions of "obscene," "pornography," and "sexually explicit" 
3 A-0856-22

materials, but did not provide an explanation of where those definitions were 

obtained. The letter also informed Simmons that JPay's Terms and Conditions 

of Use, which he agreed to follow, states that all emails and attachments will be 

monitored by DOC or JPay for compliance with DOC policies, and that inmates 

will not receive a refund for materials confiscated by DOC. 

 On August 2, 2022, Simmons submitted an inmate grievance form seeking 

compensation for the confiscated videos. He stated that: (1) DOC failed to 

provide him with a confiscation notice; (2) the confiscation was "ethnic 

discrimination, cultural bias[,] and prejudice" and (3) he was being retaliated 

against because "non-nude videos" he previously purchased and received from 

JPay had been removed from his JPay account. 

 On September 13, 2022, a DOC representative informed Simmons that his 

grievance had been previously answered. 

On October 4, 2022, Simmons filed a request for assistance with the DOC 

Ombudsman stating that DOC did not fully address his allegations of 

discrimination and retaliation. He alleged the confiscation was discrimination 

against "African, African-American communities, Latino communities[,] and 

French Polynesian communities" because the dancing depicted on the videos is 

cultural. 
4 A-0856-22

 On October 11, 2022, a DOC employee responded by informing Simmons 

that his grievance had previously been answered. 

 Simmons again filed a claim with DOC that his grievance had not been 

adequately examined. On October 19, 2022, a DOC employee issued a final 

agency decision reiterating the basis for the confiscation stated in the July 22, 

2022 letter. 

 This appeal followed. On October 5, 2023, we granted DOC's motion for 

a remand. On October 16, 2023, the agency issued a revised final agency 

decision, clarifying the basis for the confiscation. The agency stated that the 

videos were confiscated because they were "prurient," "obscene," 

"pornography," and "sexually explicit," within the meaning of N.J.A.C. 10A:18-

2.14(a)(6), and because they violate DOC's policy on videos and attachments 

received through JPay. The decision elaborated that the videos each were 

comprised of thirty-seconds "consisting entirely of close-up shots of various 

women's buttocks," while the women were "gyrating their hips in a manner that 

causes their buttocks to slap together during the entire video." 

 Simmons argues that the decision should be reversed because DOC: (1) 

did not provide him with a confiscation notice when it first confiscated the 

videos, depriving him of due process; (2) failed to compensate him for the 
5 A-0856-22

videos; (3) violated his First Amendment rights; and (4) retaliated against him 

by confiscating videos it previously permitted him to possess. 

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. Voorhees for a Certificate 

of Need, 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). 

 We have carefully reviewed the record in light of these precedents and 

find no basis on which to reverse the DOC's decision. 
6 A-0856-22

 With respect to the agency's failure to provide notice of its initial 

confiscation of the videos, we note that incarcerated persons have a right to due 

process. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 555-56 (1974). That right, 

however, is subject to limitations consistent with the important State interest in 

maintaining the orderly operation and security of prisons. O'Lone v. Shabazz, 

482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987). "Due process is not a fixed concept . . . but a flexible 

one that depends on the particular circumstances." Doe v. Poritz, 142 N.J. 1, 

106 (1995) (citations omitted). Generally, "due process requires an opportunity 

to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner." Ibid. 

 DOC does not dispute that it failed to provide Simmons with a notice of 

the confiscation, as required by N.J.A.C. 10A:3-6.1(a). Nevertheless, it is clear 

from the record that Simmons ultimately became aware of the confiscation and 

had multiple opportunities to challenge the agency's decision to block his receipt 

of the videos. The agency responded to Simmons's grievances with an 

explanation of the basis of its decision to confiscate the videos. We see no 

deprivation of due process. 

Nor do we find merit in Simmons's argument that he is entitled to 

compensation for the confiscated videos. The JPay Terms of Service, with 

which Simmons agreed to comply as a condition of using the system, expressly 
7 A-0856-22

provides that a refund will not be given when an inmate orders a video that 

violates DOC policy or regulations and is, as a result, confiscated. 

Simmons's claims of discrimination and retaliation are not supported by 

the record. A DOC regulation prohibits the possession of material that "[t]aken 

as a whole, appeals to a prurient interest in sex," "[l]acks, as a whole, serious 

literary, artistic, political, or scientific value," or "[d]epicts, in a patently 

offensive way, sexual conduct . . . extreme close-up photos, [and] any . . . 

manipulation . . . of the . . . buttocks . . . ." N.J.A.C. 10A:18-2.14(a)(6)(i) – (iii). 

The regulation provides that "[v]iolation of any rules regarding . . . electronic 

correspondence may result in non-delivery of the . . . electronic correspondence 

and/or attachment . . . and/or e-videos." N.J.A.C. 10A:18-2.14(a)(8). 

The videos, as described by DOC, depict manipulation of the buttocks in 

a manner appealing to the prurient interest. Simmons produced no evidence that 

the videos, taken as a whole, have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific 

value. Nor has he established that the DOC has applied its regulation, which is 

clearly designed to maintain the orderly operation and security of the prison, in 

a discriminatory fashion based on his cultural background. See Miller v. 

California, 413 U.S. 15, 23 (1973) (holding that inmates do not have a 
8 A-0856-22

constitutional right to possess obscene material that lacks "serious literary, 

artistic, political, or scientific value.").1

Simmons also failed to establish that the agency retaliated against him by 

confiscating previously approved videos. Once the agency became aware of the 

nature of the videos Simmons was ordering from JPay, it had the authority to 

review his prior video purchases stored in his JPay account to determine whether 

he was in possession of additional contraband. 

 To the extent we have not specifically addressed any of Simmons's 

remaining arguments, we conclude they lack sufficient merit to warrant 

discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). 

 Affirmed. 

 

1

 The parties did not include a copy of the videos in their submissions to this 

court. We, therefore, have not viewed the videos and rely on the description of 

their contents provided by DOC, which Simmons does not dispute.