NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-2109-18T3
CURTIS CAMPBELL,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Submitted March 17, 2020 – Decided May 15, 2020
Before Judges Currier and Firko.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Curtis Campbell, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Appellant Curtis Campbell, an inmate, appeals from the December 21,
2018 Department of Corrections (DOC) order affirming a hearing officer's
imposition of sanctions. In a prior appeal, we found the substantial evidence
presented at the disciplinary hearing supported the hearing officer's finding of
guilt. Campbell v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., No. A-4842-16 (App. Div. Dec. 6, 2018)
(slip op. at 3-4).
However, because the hearing officer had not provided reasons for the
imposed sanctions, we remanded in accordance with Mejia v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.,
446 N.J. Super. 369, 378-79 (App. Div. 2016) and Malacow v. N.J. Dep't of
Corr., 457 N.J. Super. 87, 96-97 (App. Div. 2018). On remand, the hearing
officer supplied sufficient reasoning for the imposed sanctions. We affirm.
Appellant was found guilty of prohibited act *.004, fighting with another
person, in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(i). The hearing officer imposed
sanctions of fifteen days loss of recreational privileges, ninety-one days
administrative segregation, and sixty days loss of commutation time.
On remand, the hearing officer re-imposed the original sanctions but
added the following reasons: "[P]lease note, [there is] no evidence of mental
health problems. . . . Sanction[s] [are meant] to deter [inmates] from fighting
[and] to promote a safe [and] secure facility. [Hearing officer] notes [appellant]
A-2109-18T3
2
has no other disciplin[ary] history. However, violence of any kind cannot be
tolerated."
In upholding the hearing officer's decision and sanctions, the assistant
superintendent stated: "DOC is in compliance with procedural safeguards. The
sanction[s] [are] appropriate to the charge. No leniency will be afforded to
[appellant]. [There was] [n]o misinterpretation of the facts." The assistant
superintendent also noted that appellant's mental health history was reviewed
and considered.
As we have stated, our role in reviewing a prison disciplinary decision is
limited. Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 190 (App. Div.
2010). In general, the decision must not be disturbed on appeal unless it was
arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or lacked the support of "substantial
credible evidence in the record as a whole." Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81
N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980) (citation omitted).
On appeal, appellant argues: (1) there was not enough evidence to re -
affirm the initial decision because he is legally blind; (2) respondent has not
provided sufficient reasons for re-affirming the initial decision; (3) appellant's
counsel substitute was ineffective at the remand hearing; (4) all allegations and
A-2109-18T3
3
sanctions in relation to the present matter must be expunged; and (5) respondent
failed to investigate appellant's prior complaints regarding his cellmate.
When this court considers a matter that has been appealed for a second
time, "[t]he ruling on the first appeal is the law of the case." Deverman v.
Stevens Builders, Inc., 35 N.J. Super. 300, 302 (App. Div. 1955) (citing Hollister
v. Fiedler, 30 N.J. Super. 203 (App. Div. 1954)). In Deverman, a case that was
appealed for a second time following remand, this court held that it was not
authorized to "collateral[ly] review . . . the first decision of this [court]" and,
instead, was only responsible for evaluating whether the court on remand
adhered to this court's instructions following the first appeal. Ibid.
We affirmed the hearing officer's finding of guilt in the first appeal. Our
review following remand is restricted to whether the DOC complied with our
instructions pertaining to the imposition of sanctions. We do not consider any
arguments raised by appellant addressing matters outside this discrete issue.
"For a sentence to be 'appropriate,' it is not enough that the sentence be
within the maximum limits set forth in the Administrative Code." Mejia, 446
N.J. Super. at 379. "Without an articulation of sanctioning factors, '[this court]
ha[s] no way to review whether a sanction is imposed for permissible reasons
A-2109-18T3
4
and is located at an appropriate point within the allowable range.'" Malacow,
457 N.J. Super. at 97 (quoting Mejia, 446 N.J. Super. at 379).
Pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17(a), when a hearing officer decides
whether to impose disciplinary sanctions, he or she may consider the following
factors:
1. Offender's past history of correctional facility
adjustment;
2. Setting and circumstances of the prohibited behavior;
3. Involved inmate's account;
4. Correctional goals set for the inmate; and
5. The inmate's history of, or the presence of, mental
illness.
"[T]he use of those or other 'such factors' [is] entirely [within] the discretion of
the hearing officer." Mejia, 446 N.J. Super. at 378 (citing N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
9.17(a)).
On remand, the hearing officer re-imposed the original sanctions, this time
providing reasons for each penalty. In upholding the hearing officer's decision,
the assistant superintendent found the sanctions were appropriate for the charge.
We are satisfied the hearing officer on remand articulated appropriate
reasons for imposing the sanctions. The hearing officer noted appellant's lack
A-2109-18T3
5
of mental health problems, the purpose sanctions serve in deterring fighting and
promoting safety, and the DOC's strong stance against violence. The decision
of the DOC upholding the sanctions was not arbitrary, capricious, or
unreasonable.
Affirmed.
A-2109-18T3
6