Court Opinion

ID: 9908322
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-08 15:07:56.263324+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:49:05.769480
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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3744-21

EDARIEL MELENDEZ,

          Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

     Respondent.
___________________________

                   Submitted November 28, 2023 – Decided December 8, 2023

                   Before Judges Mayer and Paganelli.

                   On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
                   Corrections.

                   Edariel Melendez, appellant pro se.

                   Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General, attorney for
                   respondent (Donna Sue Arons, Assistant Attorney
                   General, of counsel; Christopher Josephson, Deputy
                   Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
      Appellant Edariel Melendez, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison,

appeals from a July 7, 2022 final agency decision issued by respondent New

Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) affirming modifications to his prison

housing and work assignments. We affirm.

      On January 6, 2021, Melendez was assigned to a cell located in the North

Compound of New Jersey State Prison. On February 24, 2021, he was assigned

to work as a North Compound Maintenance Painter. 1

      On August 25, 2021, Melendez's housing assignment was relocated to the

West Compound at the prison. As a result of this housing relocation, Melendez's

work assignment changed to West Compound Cell Sanitation. Two months

later, Melendez was reassigned from West Compound Cell Sanitation to West

Compound Inside Sanitation.

      On March 23, 2022, at his request, Melendez's housing assignment was

changed, and he returned to housing in the North Compound. Based on the

change in housing assignment, Melendez's work assignment was changed to

North Compound Inside Sanitation.

1
   From February 23 until March 4, 2021, Melendez was temporarily relocated
to the South Compound. He had no work assignment during this time period.
                                                                         A-3744-21
                                      2
      On May 21, 2022, Melendez's housing assignment was again changed to

the West Compound. As a result of this change, Melendez's work assignment

changed to West Compound Cell Sanitation.

      Based on this change in housing and work assignments, Melendez filed an

Inmate Inquiry form. As part of his inquiry, Melendez questioned his change in

work assignment. He alleged his "due process rights were violated when [he]

was arbitrarily and capriciously fired from [his] institutional job as [a] [N]orth

[C]ompound [I]nside [S]an[itation] worker." Melendez requested reinstatement

to his prior work assignment in North Compound Inside Sanitation.

      Because he claimed he never received a response to this inquiry, on June

8, 2022, Melendez filed an Inmate Grievance form.            In this submission,

Melendez stated the following:

            [I'm] writing . . . with regards to [my] not getting a
            response to my . . . inquiry dated 5-23-22. Simply put,
            [I] want to know what [I] did to have my job terminated
            and housing unit changed. Again[,] [I] am requesting
            to be reinstated to my job and housing assignment. I
            am requesting back pay and work credits. In the case
            at hand, the D.O.C. decision does not conform with
            relevant law, the decision is not supported by
            substantial credible evidence in the record, and when
            applying the law to the facts, the D.O.C. clearly erred
            in reaching [its] conclusion.

                                                                            A-3744-21
                                        3
      On June 14, 2022, Lieutenant Michael Crawford, an officer at New Jersey

State Prison, responded to Melendez's initial Inmate Inquiry. The Lieutenant

advised Melendez was "moved from [the North Compound] based on

institutional needs [and] therefore . . . [was] ineligible for [the prior] job and

[was] laid[-]in and given a new position."

      On July 6, 2022, a prison staff member responded to Melendez's Inmate

Grievance. The staff member advised: "Housing assignments are made based

upon the needs of the institution. As advised by Lt. Crawford, your housing

change made you ineligible for the detail you were assigned to. You may submit

a request for job change to be considered by the classification committee."

      Melendez appealed the decision, asserting "the conduct that is the subject

matter of [his] grievance was arbitrary and capricious and taken in bad faith."

He claimed his reassignment was retaliatory and unjustified because he was not

charged with a disciplinary infraction.

      In a July 7, 2022 decision, the DOC upheld the initial decision and advised

Melendez that "the answer provided by staff [was] suffic[ient]."

      On appeal, Melendez raises the following argument:

            APPELLANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS, AS
            STATED IN TITLE 10A:13-4.2(e) WERE VIOLATED
            WHEN APPELLANT WAS FIRED FROM HIS
            PRISON JOB AND MOVED TO ANOTHER AREA

                                                                            A-3744-21
                                          4
            OF THE PRISON WITHOUT WARNING, OR
            STATED JUSTIFICATION. HIS REQUESTS TO BE
            REINSTATED TO HIS JOB, RELOCATED BACK
            TO HIS ORIGINAL CELL, AND GIVEN BACK PAY
            HAVE NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.

      Our scope of review of an agency decision is limited. In re Stallworth,

208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011).      Reviewing courts presume the validity of the

"administrative agency's exercise of its statutorily delegated responsibilities."

Lavezzi v. State, 219 N.J. 163, 171 (2014) (citing City of Newark v. Natural

Res. Council, Dep't of Envtl. Prot., 82 N.J. 530, 539 (1980)). "We 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) (citing

Bailey v. Bd. of Rev., 339 N.J. Super. 29, 33 (App. Div. 2001)).

      In determining whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable, we consider whether:       (1) the agency followed the law; (2)

substantial evidence supports the findings; and (3) the agency "clearly erred" in

"applying the legislative policies to the facts." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 482-

83 (2007) (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., Police & Firemen's Ret. Sys., 143 N.J.

22, 25 (1995)). "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence as a reasonable

mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't

                                                                            A-3744-21
                                        5
of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 192 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting In re Pub. Serv.

Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).

     Inmates do not possess a liberty or property interest in job assignment s.

Lorusso v. Pinchak, 305 N.J. Super. 117, 119 (App. Div. 1997) (citing James v.

Quinlan, 866 F.2d 627, 629 (3d Cir. 1989)). "[I]nmates entering prison have no

concrete expectation of being given a job assignment." Ibid. While inmates

may believe the DOC will not change work assignments absent misconduct,

"because of the unique circumstances that attend the administration of prisons,

reasonable assumptions of inmates cannot always be equated with

constitutionally-protected liberty interests." Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239,

253 (1987).

     Nor do inmates have a due process right to a particular housing assignment

within a prison facility. Consistent with the United States Supreme Court's

decision in Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976), there is no violation

of an inmate's right to due process even where an inmate is transferred from one

prison facility to another prison facility with a more restrictive confinement

policy. Applying this principle, Melendez's transfer to another housing unit

within New Jersey State Prison did not constitute a violation of his right to due

process.

                                                                           A-3744-21
                                       6
     Additionally, Melendez asserted his housing and work reassignments were

retaliatory. However, there is nothing in the record supporting any retaliatory

conduct by officials at New Jersey State Prison. Nor does Melendez assert any

specific instances of claimed retaliation.

     Consistent with applicable case law,2 Melendez has no constitutionally

enforceable right to a particular work or housing assignment. The DOC has

discretion in the assignment of housing and work for inmates. The decision to

reassign Melendez to a different job position and housing location did not

deprive him of a fundamental liberty or property interest.

     Having reviewed the record, we are satisfied the DOC's decision modifying

Melendez's prison housing and work assignments did not deprive him of any

fundamental liberty or property interest.    We are satisfied the DOC's final

decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.

      To the extent we have not addressed any remaining arguments, we

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

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

      Affirmed.

2
  Melendez cited an unpublished Appellate Division decision in support of his
arguments on appeal. However, Rule 1:36-3 provides "[n]o unpublished opinion
shall constitute precedent or be binding on any court."
                                                                         A-3744-21
                                        7