NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0162-15T3
RICARDO FREENY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
JOHN DOES,
Defendants-Respondents.
____________________________________________
Submitted April 25, 2017 – Decided June 6, 2017
Before Judges Reisner and Rothstadt.
On appeal from Superior Court of New Jersey,
Law Division, Cumberland County, Docket Nos.
SC-241-15, SC-242-15, SC-243-15, SC-244-15,
SC-245-15, SC-246-15, SC-247-15, and Mercer
County, Docket No. SC-432-15.
Ricardo Freeny, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondents Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd,
Lieutenant Blair, Kenneth Crotty, Lieutenant
Warfle, and Connie Karch (Lisa A. Puglisi,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Adam
Robert Gibbons, Deputy Attorney General, on
the brief).
Office of General Counsel for Rutgers
University, The State University of New
Jersey, attorneys for respondent Jennifer
Stackhouse (D'Andre Workman, Associate
General Counsel, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff Ricardo Freeny, an inmate in state prison, appeals
from the Special Civil Part's dismissal of the various small claims
complaints that he filed against defendants, who either worked for
the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) or entities that
were contracted to perform services at state prisons. His
complaints alleged that the individual defendants physically
injured him or caused loss or damage to his personal property.
The trial court judges that considered the matters dismissed the
complaints because plaintiff failed to appear for trial, they were
filed outside of the applicable statute of limitations, or
plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies through
the inmate remedy system (IRS), N.J.A.C. 10A:1-4.1 to -4.9.1
Plaintiff argues on appeal that he did not appear for trial because
the DOC wrongfully failed to pay for his transportation to court,
1
"Through the inmate-remedy system 'inmates may formally
communicate with correctional facility staff to request
information from, and present issues, concerns, complaints or
problems to the correctional facility staff.'" Ortiz v. N.J.
Dept. of Corr., 406 N.J. Super. 63, 66-67 (App. Div. 2009) (quoting
N.J.A.C. 10A:1-4.1(a)(1)). An inmate dissatisfied with the result
of that process "may appeal to this court from such a final
decision." Id. at 67 (citing R. 2:2-3(a)(2)). See also N.J.A.C.
10A:2-6.1 (governing the procedures for determining an inmate's
claims for reimbursement for lost, damaged, or destroyed personal
property).
2 A-0162-15T3
the court erred in failing to consider the continuing tort
doctrine, and the interests of justice require we relax inmate
administrative procedures. We affirm.
The record discloses that plaintiff filed all of his
complaints on April 27, 2015, with the Law Division's Special
Civil Part in Cumberland County. Each of his complaints demanded
$3,000 in damages. They alleged various acts of misconduct by
prison officials that caused him physical injury and property
loss, all relating to disciplinary charges that plaintiff alleged
were based on events that took place on March 21, 2013, and that
we addressed in our decision in Ricardo Freeny v. New Jersey
Department of Corrections, A-5884-15 (App. Div. Feb. 24, 2015) in
which we found insufficient evidence to support the charges made
against him.
Plaintiff's complaints were scheduled for trial in Cumberland
County on May 27, 2015. Plaintiff failed to appear on that date
so the court entered orders dismissing some complaints without
prejudice, based on his failure to appear, and others with
prejudice,2 based upon the applicable two-year statute of
limitations. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(a). The matters were then
transferred to Mercer County and re-docketed in that venue.
2
Four complaints were dismissed without prejudice.
3 A-0162-15T3
On July 10, 2015, the court in Mercer County consolidated all
of the actions and ordered that they be dismissed. In a twelve-
page written decision, the court explained its reasons for
dismissing the complaints. In its decision, the court carefully
reviewed the allegations of each of plaintiff's complaints. The
court considered the IRS and the case law that discussed its
application to inmates' claims. In addition, the court observed
that inmates filing tort claims against the DOC are required to
comply with the requirements of the Tort Claims Act (TCA), N.J.S.A.
59:1-1 to 12-3. Also, it discussed an inmate's responsibility to
arrange for transportation to court to address the inmate's civil
claims. The court concluded by recognizing there may be issues
as to plaintiff's compliance with the TCA, but, in any event,
found that plaintiff's claims fell "within the [IRS] and none of
the allegations raised by [] Plaintiff belong on the Small Claims
Docket." The court dismissed plaintiff's complaints. This appeal
followed.
We conclude from our review of plaintiff's contentions that
his appellate arguments are without sufficient merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm
substantially for the reason that plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies, as expressed by the trial court, for
claims relating to loss or injury to his property or issues
4 A-0162-15T3
relating to his incarceration. Any appeal from an adverse
determination in that process should be filed with the Appellate
Division and not by filing a small claims complaint. See Barnes
v. Sherrer, 401 N.J. Super. 172, 177 (App. Div. 2008).3 In
addition, plaintiff's complaints that were filed based upon
injuries to his person that occurred more than two years prior to
a complaint's filing date were properly dismissed as being barred
by the statute of limitations. N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2(a).
Affirmed.
3
As we stated in Barnes,
[i]n light of our determination that [the
inmate]'s claim should be resolved
administratively, we decline to [address the
issue of an inmate's right to be transported
to court] in the present context.
Nonetheless, we express concern that prisoners
. . . are denied access to the courts in this
fashion, if video conferencing or other
technological means of communication could
permit trial to occur at a reasonable cost and
without the need for physical transport.
[Ibid.]
5 A-0162-15T3
RICARDO FREENY VS. JOHN DOES(SC-241-15, SC-242-15, SC-243-15, SC-244-15, SC-245-15,SC-246-15, SC-247-15, CUMBERLAND AND SC-432-15, MERCERCOUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
Combined Opinion