Court Opinion

ID: 9950117
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 14:10:56.165139+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:36:04.033988
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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.

                                                        SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                                        APPELLATE DIVISION
                                                        DOCKET NO. A-1680-22

PATRICK PANTUSCO,

          Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

     Respondent.
__________________________

                   Argued March 5, 2024 – Decided March 13, 2024

                   Before Judges Haas and Natali.

                   On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
                   Corrections.

                   Patrick Pantusco, appellant, argued the cause pro se.

                   Dorothy M. Rodriguez, Deputy Attorney General,
                   argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin,
                   Attorney General, attorney; Janet Greenberg Cohen,
                   Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Katherine Ellen
                   Chrisman, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Appellant Patrick Pantusco appeals from the denial of his grievance by

the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) in which he sought back pay,

work credits, and reinstatement to his previous position as a food service worker.

For the following reasons, we remand this matter to DOC for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

      Appellant is currently incarcerated at Northern State Prison in Newark,

where he is serving a maximum fifty-year sentence, with a thirty-year period of

parole ineligibility for felony murder, aggravated manslaughter, aggravated

assault, robbery, burglary, and theft. See State v. Pantusco, 330 N.J. Super. 424

(App. Div. 2000), certif. denied, 165 N.J. 527 (2000). Beginning in December

2020, appellant was assigned to work in the kitchen seven days per week at a

wage of $3.20 per day. On August 19, 2022, DOC charged appellant with

committing prohibited act *.011, "possession or exhibition of anything related

to a security threat group."

      Appellant was thereafter placed in prehearing disciplinary housing

(PHDH). Due to his pending disciplinary charge and relocation to PHDH,

appellant could not report to work, and on September 14, 2022, DOC formally

removed him from his kitchen job. Following hearings on August 24, 2022;

                                                                            A-1680-22
                                        2
September 9, 2022; and September 21, 2022; a disciplinary hearing officer found

appellant not guilty of prohibited act *.011, concluding it was "unsupported."

      Appellant filed a grievance on November 4, 2022, in which he sought back

pay and work credits pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:13-4.2(e) for the time he was

placed in PHDH prior to being adjudicated not guilty. The record before us does

not reflect what action, if any, DOC took with respect to this grievance.

      Subsequently, on December 8, 2022, appellant filed the grievance subject

to the instant appeal, stating:

             I am writing pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:13-4.2(e). I
             submitted an inquiry over a month ago about receiving
             my back pay and work credits for the time I was not
             permitted to[] report to work due to being placed on
             PHDH on [August 19, 2022] through [September 22,
             2022] when I was found [n]ot [g]uilty.

             The Administrative [C]ode mandates that I receive the
             pay and work credits for the time I was unable to report
             to work due to a disciplinary charge for which I was
             found not guilty. Furthermore, I was taken off of the
             food[ ]service roster due to being placed on PHDH, but
             since I was found NOT GUILTY I should be reinstated
             and begin working on the line again. There is an
             opening on my unit.

             The last inquiry to your office was forwarded to
             [c]lassification and has been overdue for weeks. I have
             not been paid in month[.] Please address as soon as
             possible. Thank you[.]

                                                                            A-1680-22
                                        3
      Having received no response to his December 8 grievance, appellant

submitted an additional grievance on December 16, 2022 requesting the same

relief, to which the DOC responded on December 19, 2022, that the matter was

"referred to Administration for review and any action [was] deemed

appropriate." DOC then closed the December 8 grievance on January 4, 2023,

stating simply "[c]lassification has been made aware of your request."

      Appellant administratively appealed the decision the same day, asserting

he was "entitled to the back pay due to being found NOT GUILTY, it is not

discretionary." On January 18, 2023, DOC rejected the appeal, stating only

"[y]our [a]ppeal has been received and the response noted was deemed to be

appropriate. Case closed. Thank you for your concerns." In February 2023,

appellant was assigned to work in tier sanitation five days per week at a rate of

$1.30 per day.

      As best we can discern from the record, DOC made the following

payments to appellant relevant to his grievance: $25.20 on September 15, 2022

for eighteen days in August 2022 at $1.40 per day; $41.60 on October 17, 2022

for thirteen days from September 1 to 14, 2022 at $3.20 per day; $18.20 on April

19, 2023 for thirteen days in August 2022 at $1.40 per day; and $137.80 on May

10, 2023 for 106 days between September 2022 and February 2023 at $1.30 per

                                                                           A-1680-22
                                       4
day. DOC also awarded appellant the following work credits: 6.2 days for

August 2022, 5.4 days for September 2022, 4 days for October 2022, 3.8 days

for November 2022, 4.2 days for December 2022, 4 days for January 2023 , and

3.8 days for February 2023.

      Our review of administrative action is "limited." Zimmerman v. Diviney,

477 N.J. Super. 1, 14 (App. Div. 2023). Accordingly, our role is only to

determine "(1) whether the agency's decision conforms with relevant law; (2)

whether the decision is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record;

and (3) whether, in applying the law to the facts, the administrative agency

clearly erred in reaching its conclusion." Conley v. N.J. Dep't. of Corrs., 452

N.J. Super. 605, 613 (App. Div. 2018) (citing In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194

(2011)).

      "A state agency rendering a final agency decision must explain the

specific reasons for its determination." In re Orban/Square Props., LLC, 461

N.J. Super. 57, 77 (App. Div. 2019). We have previously noted "DOC is not

immune" from the requirement that an agency "adequately set forth its rationale

in support of a final determination." Blackwell v. Dep't. of Corrs., 348 N.J.

Super. 117, 122-23 (App. Div. 2002).

                                                                           A-1680-22
                                       5
      We initially address and reject, for two reasons, DOC's contention that the

appeal is moot because appellant received back pay and work credits. First,

appellant disputes he received all work credits due or that he was compensated

properly at the rate of $3.20 per day, for a seven-day work week. Second, he

argues DOC improperly terminated him from his position in the kitchen and that

he is entitled to reinstatement to that job. We are satisfied from the limited

record these disputed issues have not been resolved and thus the issues on appeal

remain justiciable. See Comando v. Nugiel, 436 N.J. Super. 203, 219 (App. Div.

2014) ("A case is technically moot when the original issue presented has been

resolved, at least concerning the parties who initiated the litigation." (quoting

Betancourt v. Trinitas Hosp., 415 N.J. Super. 301, 311 (App. Div. 2010))).

      As to appellant's substantive challenges to the DOC's decision, we

conclude the record before us is wholly insufficient to perform a meaningful

review. The communications from DOC regarding appellant's grievance

provide no explanation whatsoever for any action taken, including why it

ostensibly concluded appellant was not entitled to reinstatement to the kitchen ,

or how it calculated the back pay and work credits it awarded to appellant.

Simply put, without knowing the bases for DOC's determination, we are unable

                                                                           A-1680-22
                                       6
to conclude whether it clearly erred in denying appellant the remedies he

requested.

      Accordingly, we vacate the DOC's denial of appellant's grievance and

remand to DOC for reconsideration.         On remand, DOC should address

appellant's requests for relief detailed in his December 8, 2022 grievance,

including his claim he is entitled to reinstatement to his prior work assignment,

back pay at his previously established rate, and work time credits. DOC's

decision shall be supported by appropriate factual findings and legal

conclusions.

      Vacated and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction.

                                                                           A-1680-22
                                       7