NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1694-18T2
YUSUF IBRAHIM, a/k/a
YUSUT IBRAHIM, YUSEF F.
IBRAHIM, YUSIF IBRAHIM,
YUSLIF IBRAHIM and YUSEF
IBRAHIM, and YUSUF MESHAL,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
____________________________
Submitted December 2, 2020 – Decided December 30, 2020
Before Judges Whipple and Firko.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Yusuf Ibrahim, appellant pro se.
Gurbir S. Grewal, Attorney General, attorney for
respondent (Jane C. Schuster, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Travis M. Anderson, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Yusuf Ibrahim, an inmate at New Jersey State Prison (NJSP), appeals from
the November 5, 2018 final determination of the Department of Corrections
(DOC) adjudicating him guilty of prohibited act *.005, threatening another with
bodily harm or with any offense against his or her person or his or her property
in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(ii). We affirm.
I.
The following facts are derived from the record. On September 18, 2018
at approximately 1:30 p.m., during mental health assessment rounds, Ibrahim
requested a meeting with a mental health clinician because of his concerns about
having a cellmate instead of being placed in a single lock prison cell. According
to Ibrahim, he suffers from a number of psychological disorders, including
intermittent explosive disorder.
In response to Ibrahim's request, Dr. Flora DeFilippo and Officer D. Cieri
entered Ibrahim's jail cell. During this visit, Ibrahim threatened to "beat [his]
cellmate to death given the slightest reason," and referred to his convictions for
murder and dismemberment. On September 19, 2018, Sergeant J. DeJesus
issued a written disciplinary report charging Ibrahim with committing prohibited
act *.005. Ibrahim was placed in pre-hearing disciplinary housing, pending
A-1694-18T2
2
medical clearance. A corrections sergeant delivered a copy of the disciplinary
report to Ibrahim on September 19, 2018. An investigation was conducted, and
the matter was referred to a hearing officer.
A disciplinary hearing was scheduled and postponed pending Ibrahim's
mental health evaluation. The second scheduled hearing was postponed because
further investigation was needed. Ultimately, the disciplinary hearing began on
September 26, 2018. At the hearing, Ibrahim was represented by counsel
substitute and pled not guilty to the charge. The Disciplinary Hearing Officer
permitted Ibrahim to have four witnesses testify to support his claim: Officer
Cieri; his cellmate Chireno; and two inmates, Conley and McCedon.
Officer Cieri stated that Ibrahim's prison cell was secured, and he did not
overhear the conversation between appellant and Dr. DeFilippo. Chireno stated
that Ibrahim conversed with Dr. DeFilippo in a "very polite manner" and
requested to be in a single lock cell because he was concerned about "sexual
assault." Conley and McCedon declined to provide statements. Ibrahim stated
at the hearing he only told Dr. DeFilippo about his fear of being "sexually
assaulted" and requested to be placed in a single locked cell.
The hearing officer reviewed the record of the charge, the testimony, and
the evidence, including Ibrahim's mental health report, and found him guilty of
A-1694-18T2
3
committing disciplinary infraction *.005 by threatening bodily harm. The
hearing officer imposed a sanction of 120 days of administrative segregation,
120 days' loss of commutation time, and thirty days' loss of recreational
privileges. Ibrahim appealed the decision. On October 5, 2018, the Associate
Administrator denied Ibrahim's appeal and upheld the hearing officer's decision.
On March 16, 2020, respondent New Jersey Department of Corrections
moved for a remand to address whether Ibrahim requested or was offered the
opportunity to confront adverse witnesses. Line fifteen of the adjudication
report states, "[l]ist of adverse witnesses the inmate requests to confront/cross-
examine including those requested through the investigator" was left blank. We
granted the motion for remand, and the hearing officer provided a memo
attesting that Ibrahim was offered but declined the opportunity to confront
adverse witnesses.
II.
Our review of a final agency decision is limited. Reversal is appropriate
only when the agency's decision is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or
unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole. Henry v.
Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579-80 (1980); see also In re Taylor, 158 N.J.
644, 657 (1999) (holding that a court must uphold an agency's findings, even if
A-1694-18T2
4
it would have reached a different result, so long as sufficient credible evidence
in the record exists to support the agency's conclusions). "[A]lthough the
determination of an administrative agency is entitled to deference, our appellate
obligation requires more than a perfunctory review." Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of
Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186, 191 (App. Div. 2010) (quoting Blackwell v. Dep't of
Corr., 348 N.J. Super. 117, 123 (App. Div. 2002)).
"A finding of guilt at a disciplinary hearing shall be based upon substantial
evidence that the inmate has committed a prohibited act." N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
9.15(a). "Substantial evidence" is "such evidence as a reasonable mind might
accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192
(quoting In re Pub. Serv. Elec. & Gas Co., 35 N.J. 358, 376 (1961)). In other
words, it is "evidence furnishing a reasonable basis for the agency's action."
Figueroa, 414 N.J. Super. at 192 (quoting McGowan v. N.J. State Parole Bd.,
347 N.J Super. 544, 562 (App. Div. 2002)).
We review a disciplinary decision to determine whether there is
substantial evidence in the record to support the hearing officer's finding that
the inmate committed a prohibited act. We also review the hearing officer's
proceedings to ensure the inmate received procedural due process. McDonald
v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-95 (1995). However, we "may not substitute [our]
A-1694-18T2
5
own factfinding for that of the agency." Tlumac v. High Bridge Stone, 187 N.J.
567, 573 (2006). We can overturn a decision only when it is "so wide off the
mark as to be manifestly mistaken." Ibid.
Here, the hearing officer's decision finding defendant guilty of
disciplinary infraction *.005 in violation of N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a) was not
arbitrary or capricious. The decision is supported by substantial credible
evidence in the record, and Ibrahim received all the procedural protections to
which he was entitled.
Affirmed.
A-1694-18T2
6