NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-3578-18T3
JAMIL BROOKS,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
______________________________
Submitted June 3, 2020 – Decided June 22, 2020
Before Judges Gooden Brown and Mawla.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
James S. Friedman, attorney for appellant.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Nicholas Falcone, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Jamil Brooks, an inmate at Bayside State Prison, appeals from a March
20, 2019 final order of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC)
adjudicating him guilty of assault, *803/*002, and conduct which disrupts, *306.
He received 180 days administrative segregation, 180 days loss of commutation
credits, and fifteen days loss of recreation privileges. We affirm the finding on
the infractions and vacate and remand the sanctions for reconsideration.
The essential facts, adduced before a hearing officer, were based on
eyewitness testimony of the officers A. Mears1 and R. Attenborough, and a video
of the incident. According to Mears' testimony, he observed Brooks leaving a
nearby cell, enter his own cell, and close the door behind him. Mears asked
Brooks why he was loitering and for his prison identification. Brooks became
aggressive, took a fighting stance, and lunged at Mears. Mears pepper sprayed
Brooks in an effort to subdue him.
Attenborough saw the altercation over video and called a Code 332, and
other officers arrived to assist Mears. In addition to Attenborough's testimony,
the hearing officer reviewed a video of the incident.
1
The record refers to the officers by first initial and last name.
2
A Code 33 alerts DOC staff of an emergency within the prison and signals all
available staff to respond to the emergent situation.
A-3578-18T3
2
Brooks did not confront or cross-examine any of the DOC's witnesses and
produced no witnesses of his own. The hearing officer concluded Brooks was
guilty of the offenses as charged. Brooks appealed and the assistant
superintendent upheld the guilty adjudication and sanction.
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). 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).
Brooks argues the adjudication was not based on substantial evidence
because the officers who responded arrived after the incident and did not see
what happened. Brooks also argues a report filed after the incident conflicted
with Mears' testimony because it said Mears saw Brooks leave the unauthorized
cell whereas Mears stated he saw Brooks loitering outside the cells. Brooks
argues the report also conflicted with Attenborough's testimony in that it stated
Attenborough saw the encounter between Brooks and Mears, yet Attenborough's
observations were after the fact and provided no details of the incident. Brooks
notes the video of the incident has no sound and does not show the altercation.
A-3578-18T3
3
Therefore, he argues Mears was the only witness with personal knowledge,
which was not enough to support a guilty finding.
N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.15(a) states an adjudication of an infraction must be
supported by substantial evidence. "'Substantial evidence' means 'such evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'"
Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 191-92 (quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co.,
35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)).
The evidence presented by the DOC was unrebutted, and Brooks already
pled guilty to being in an unauthorized area. Mears' testimony that he saw
Brooks in front of the wrong cell and about the ensuing altercation was
corroborated by Attenborough, who stated he called the Code 33 because Brooks
was combative and refused stop his aggressive conduct towards Mears. Taken
together, these facts supported the assault finding.
Although the video of the incident was not provided to us, the DOC asserts
it depicts Brooks being escorted from his cell by officers (a fact Brooks does not
contest), which resulted in a delay in movement inside the prison. Therefore,
the video combined with Attenborough's unrebutted testimony of the reasons
why he called the Code 33 supported the guilty adjudication on the disruption
charge.
A-3578-18T3
4
Finally, the *803/*002 offenses are category "A" offenses, N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a)(1), and pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g), require a sanction of
administrative segregation of no less than 181 days and "any one or more of the
following sanctions . . . 1. Loss of one or more correctional facility privileges
up to [thirty] calendar days; 2. Loss of commutation time up to 365 calendar
days . . . ." The sanction for the *306 offense is a category "B" offense, N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a)(2), and mandates a sanction of no more than 180 days
administrative segregation in addition to any one or more of the sanctions
enumerated in N.J.A.C. 10A:4-5.1(g).
We have repeatedly stated the DOC must provide an inmate with
"individualized reasons for the specific sanctions imposed." Malacow v. N.J.
Dep't of Corr., 457 N.J. Super. 87, 96-97 (App. Div. 2018); see also Mejia v.
N.J. Dep't of Corr., 446 N.J. Super. 369, 378-79 (App. Div. 2016). N.J.A.C.
10A:4-9.17(a) sets forth the individualized factors for imposing sanctions. The
hearing officer's reasons for imposing the sanction were (1) Brooks maintained
he did not commit the offense although evidence demonstrated he was guilty
and (2) the "[s]anctions [would] deter any further attempts while incarcerated."
However, this was an insufficient individualized explanation of how the
sanctions were proportionate to Brooks and his offenses. We therefore vacate
A-3578-18T3
5
and remand the sanctions for reconsideration and specific reasons for the
sanctions pursuant to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17(a).
Affirmed in part, vacated and remanded in part. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
A-3578-18T3
6