NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-0301-16T1
DYSHON RAGLAND,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted June 19, 2018 – Decided September 28, 2018
Before Judges Nugent and Accurso.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Dyshon Ragland, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Melissa Dutton Schaffer, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Suzanne M. Davies,
Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison, challenges the
Department of Corrections' September 12, 2016 final disciplinary decision
finding him guilty of prohibited act *.052, making sexual proposals or threats to
another, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(3)(iv). He argues:
POINT I
The Decision of The Hearing Officer Was Not Based
on Substantial Evidence.
A. Standard of Review.
B. Argument.
POINT II
The cell confrontation, which resulted in the charges
advanced in and of itself was retaliation for
involvement in constitutionally protected activity and
in particular for complaining about the rogue and
corrupt practices utilized in the operation of the New
Jersey State Prison.
For the reasons that follow, we affirm.
Appellant was charged with committing prohibited act *.052. He pled not
guilty and counsel substitute was appointed to assist him in his defense. After
an adjournment to accommodate appellant's request of confrontation with the
accusing officer, Lieutenant Bundy, the hearing was completed. The Hearing
Officer found appellant guilty. His sanctions included ninety days of
A-0301-16T1
2
administrative segregation, sixty days loss of commutation time, and thirty days
loss of recreation privileges.
Appellant filed an administrative appeal, which was denied. He then filed
this appeal.
The parties presented conflicting versions of the incident through the
proofs they presented at the hearing. The Department's evidence established
that on August 5, 2016, while conducting a tour of the unit where appellant was
housed, Lieutenant Bundy asked appellant why he had sheets covering his
window. Appellant claimed it was because a female was on the unit. The next
day, Lieutenant Bundy was conducting another tour and noticed that appellant
had sheets covering his cell door window. The Lieutenant gave appellant two
direct orders to take down the sheets. Appellant disobeyed the orders and yelled,
"How about I take it down and then make you suck my dick."
Appellant claimed Lieutenant Bundy made the story up to retaliate against
him. Appellant had submitted a complaint concerning what he alleged was
mismanagement and corruption among certain corrections officers. Appellant
apparently alleged one of the officers was Lieutenant Bundy. Appellant asserted
Lieutenant Bundy falsified the charge against him in retaliation for appellant's
A-0301-16T1
3
complaint concerning the guards and his cooperation with authorities who
investigated it.
The Hearing Officer found the Department's proofs credible. The Hearing
Officer noted appellant had submitted an Inmate Inquiry Form to the
administrative officer alleging security staff continually violated his rights. But,
as the Hearing Officer pointed out, appellant submitted the form on August 5
during the second shift. The administrative staff reviews and investigates
inmate complaints within twenty-four hours after they are received. Given the
time line, Lieutenant Bundy would not have known about appellant's complaint
when the Lieutenant conducted his rounds and saw appellant's cell door window
covered with sheets.
Our role in reviewing a prison disciplinary decision is limited. In re
Taylor, 158 N.J. 644, 656 (1999). "Where . . . the determination is founded upon
sufficient credible evidence seen from the totality of the record and on that
record findings have been made and conclusions reached involving agency
expertise, the agency decision should be sustained." Gerba v. Board of Trustees
of the Public Employees' Retirement System, 83 N.J. 174, 189 (1980) (citing
Close v. Kordulak Bros., 44 N.J. 589, 599 (1965)). We will not disturb an
administrative agency determination unless it is arbitrary, capricious or
A-0301-16T1
4
unreasonable. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980). In
this case, the Department's decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
Contrary to appellant's contention, the Hearing Officer's finding of guilt
is based upon substantial credible evidence. The Hearing Officer believed the
Department's evidence. Our task is not to revisit such credibility determinations.
Affirmed.
A-0301-16T1
5