NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-1671-15T1
JOSEPH M. PALLIPURATH,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
________________________________
Submitted May 23, 2017 – Decided August 3, 2017
Before Judges Yannotti and Sapp-Peterson.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Joseph M. Pallipurath, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel;
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney
General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Pro se appellant, Joseph M. Pallipurath, is an inmate at New
Jersey State Prison, serving a life sentence with a 144-year period
of parole ineligibility, arising out of his conviction for two
murders and a third shooting that left the victim partially
paralyzed. He appeals from a final agency decision by the
Department of Corrections (DOC), denying his request to be provided
out-of-state legal reference materials from the states of Georgia
and California. Appellant resided in California prior to
committing the offenses in New Jersey. He fled to Georgia one day
after committing the crimes.
Appellant submitted an inmate request form stating that he
needed out-of-state materials in order to "effectively litigate"
his New Jersey convictions. However, he did not provide more
details regarding the request. The prison administration advised
him that a meeting would be held, and in preparation for the
meeting, he was to produce all documents supporting his request.
Rather than submit the supporting documents, appellant
administratively appealed the DOC's initial response, stating that
his "request for legal research was incomplete and other issues
were unaddressed." Receiving no further response, appellant filed
an appeal of alleged agency inaction.
The prison administrator advised appellant that his "request
require[d] in[-]depth legal research on out of state reference
2 A-1671-15T1
material. The Education Department does not have access to this
material." The present appeal followed.
On appeal, appellant contends the decision denying his right
to access out-of-state legal reference materials was arbitrarily,
capriciously, and unreasonably denied. He additionally contends
the denial was in retaliation for an earlier grievance he filed
related to his request to obtain out-of-state-legal reference
materials.
An inmate's entitlement to legal reference materials is
undergirded by a "fundamental constitutional right of access to
the courts [that] requires prison authorities to assist in the
preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing
prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from
persons trained in the law." Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 346,
116 S. Ct. 2174, 2177, 135 L. Ed. 2d 606, 614 (1996) (quoting
Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828, 97 S. Ct. 1491, 1498, 52 L.
Ed. 2d 72, 83 (1977)); N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.1. However, "prison law
libraries and legal assistance programs are not ends in themselves,
but only the means for ensuring 'a reasonably adequate opportunity
to present claimed violations of fundamental constitutional rights
to the courts.'" Lewis, supra, 518 U.S. at 351, 116 S. Ct. at
2180, 135 L. Ed. 2d at 617-18 (quoting Bounds, supra, 430 U.S. at
825, 97 S. Ct. at 1496, 52 L. Ed. 2d at 81).
3 A-1671-15T1
Thus, access to legal materials, by implication, is intended
to assist an inmate challenge a judgment or challenge conditions
of confinement. Monroe v. Beard, 536 F.3d 198, 205 (3d Cir. 2008).
Furthermore, a prisoner "must show (1) that [he has] suffered an
'actual injury' -- that [he] lost a chance to pursue a
'nonfrivolous' or 'arguable' underlying claim; and (2) that [he
has] no other 'remedy that may be awarded as recompense' for the
lost claim other than in the present denial of access suit." Ibid.
The scope of our review of a final decision of an
administrative agency is strictly limited to four inquiries:
(1) whether the agency's decision offends the
State or Federal Constitution; (2) whether the
agency's action violates the record express
or implied legislative policies; (3) whether
the record contains substantial evidence to
support the findings on which the agency based
its action; and (4) whether, in applying the
legislative policies to the facts, the agency
clearly erred in reaching a conclusion that
could not reasonably have been made on showing
of the relevant factors.
[George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk.
Auth., 137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994).]
"We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency
where its findings are supported by substantial credible evidence
in the record." Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 375 N.J. Super. 347,
352 (App. Div. 2005) (citation omitted). "The burden of
demonstrating that the agency action was arbitrary, capricious or
4 A-1671-15T1
unreasonable rests on the [party] challenging the administrative
action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J. Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div.),
certif. denied, 188 N.J. 219 (2006).
Appellant has not satisfied the requisite standards for
relief. Although appellant claims certain legal reference
materials are needed to support his application for post-
conviction relief and a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
he provides no specific facts explaining the relevancy of these
out-of-state materials to these claims. Consequently, we conclude
that the DOC's decision was not arbitrary, capricious or
unreasonable.
Finally, appellant additionally challenges the DOC's policy
regarding access to the prison law library, the inadequacy of
those facilities, and the amount of those fees, which he contends
are excessive. The notice of appeal was limited to the denial of
his request for legal research materials. We therefore decline
to consider the additional challenges raised, which we conclude
are beyond the scope of this appeal. See Belmont Condominium
Ass'n, Inc. v. Geibel, 432 N.J. Super. 52, 98 (App. Div. 2013).
Affirmed.
5 A-1671-15T1