NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4253-15T3
AHMED THAKUR,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
__________________________________________
Submitted September 19, 2017 – Decided September 25, 2017
Before Judges Yannotti and Mawla.
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.
Ahmed Thakur, appellant pro se.
Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General,
attorney for respondent (Melissa H. Raksa,
Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Erica
R. Heyer, Deputy Attorney General, on the
brief).
PER CURIAM
Ahmed Thakur, an inmate in the State's correctional system,
appeals from a final decision of the New Jersey Department of
Corrections (NJDOC), which found that he committed prohibited act
*.004, fighting with another person, in violation of N.J.A.C.
10A:4-4.1(a)(2)(i), and imposed disciplinary sanctions.1 We
affirm.
This appeal arises from the following facts. In March 2016,
Thakur was an inmate at Northern State Prison in Newark. He was
serving an eight-year sentence for manslaughter and other
offenses. On March 10, 2016, a corrections officer observed Thakur
and another inmate exchanging punches to the head and upper body,
when the inmates were going to their cells after unit recreation.
The officer ordered the inmates to stop fighting, and he
called a Code-33 to alert other staff members that there was an
emergency in the prison and assistance was needed to respond. The
officers separated the inmates. The inmates were secured and
removed from the unit. Medical personnel examined Thakur and found
that he had superficial scratches on his neck. The other inmate
involved in the altercation did not have any injuries, but he had
blood on his nose.
1
We note that effective January 3, 2017, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1 was
substantially rewritten. 48 N.J.R. 915(a) (June 6, 2016); 49 N.J.R.
105(a) (January 3, 2017). Because the sanctions at issue here were
imposed before the effective date of the new regulations, they do
not apply to this matter.
2 A-4253-15T3
On March 11, 2016, a disciplinary charge was served upon
Thakur for fighting with another person. The charge was
investigated, determined to have merit, and referred to a hearing
officer for further action. The hearing began on March 14, 2016,
Thakur pled not guilty, and he was granted the assistance of
counsel substitute.
At some point, Thakur asked the hearing officer to obtain a
videotape of the incident, which he claimed would show that he had
been trying to avoid the other inmate, and that he had approached
an officer to complain about the inmate. The hearing was postponed
so that the hearing officer could obtain the videotape. The hearing
was postponed several more times and concluded on March 30, 2016.
At the hearing, Thakur claimed the other inmate demanded that
he start paying "rent" to stay in his cell because the other inmate
"runs the unit." Thakur asserted that this inmate's demand for
rent caused the fight. He claimed to be defending himself against
what he says was an act of extortion. Thakur did not present any
witnesses at the hearing, and he declined the opportunity for
confrontation. Thakur's counsel substitute requested leniency.
The hearing officer found Thakur guilty of the charge, noting
in the adjudication report that Thakur had not offered any evidence
to contradict the staff members' reports of the incident. The
hearing officer found that Thakur had been involved in an
3 A-4253-15T3
altercation with another inmate and Thakur was the initial
aggressor. The hearing officer imposed the following sanctions:
120 days of administrative segregation, the loss of 170 days of
commutation time, and the loss of thirty days of recreation
privileges.
Thakur filed an administrative appeal, claiming that he acted
in self-defense. He denied he was the aggressor. Assistant
Superintendent Anthony Gangi upheld the hearing officer's finding
of guilt and the sanctions imposed. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Thakur argues that the agency's finding of guilt
should be vacated because he was denied the right to "view footage
from the [site] of the alleged infraction." He claims he requested
the video from "the test area (law library)" that "would have
produced an unbiased piece of crucial evidence," but his request
was denied. He also asserts that he was denied the right to call
witnesses and present evidence.
"In light of the executive function of administrative
agencies, judicial capacity to review administrative actions is
severely limited." George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Turnpike Auth.,
137 N.J. 8, 27 (1994). When reviewing a determination of the
Department in a matter involving prisoner discipline, we consider
whether there is substantial evidence that the inmate committed
the prohibited act and whether, in making its decision, the NJDOC
4 A-4253-15T3
followed the regulations adopted to afford inmates procedural due
process. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 194-95 (1995); Jacobs
v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 220-22 (1995).
As we have explained, the disciplinary hearing was adjourned
at Thakur's request so that a videotape of the incident could be
obtained. Thakur claimed that the videotape would show the other
inmate was the aggressor and started the fight at the door to his
cell. The hearing officer granted this request. The videotape was
reviewed, but the hearing officer found that Thakur was the
aggressor and he was guilty of fighting with another person.
Thakur asserts that he made a request for video footage from
the so-called test area (law library), which he claims contained
crucial evidence. Thakur did not, however, mention the law-library
video in his written request for evidence. In addition, Thakur and
his counsel substitute did not request that tape during the
hearing.
Therefore, the record does not support Thakur's assertion
that the hearing officer denied his request for evidence related
to the charge. Furthermore, the incident that resulted in the
disciplinary charge took place in Thakur's housing unit, not the
law library. The law-library tape, which allegedly was recorded
some time before the fight in the housing unit, did not contain
evidence directly relevant to the charge.
5 A-4253-15T3
We therefore conclude that there is sufficient credible
evidence in the record to support the NJDOC's determination that
Thakur committed prohibited act *.004 and the NJDOC complied with
the applicable regulations in adjudicating the charge.
Affirmed.
6 A-4253-15T3