Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-1253-15T4
02-03-2017
AJIT JAYARAM, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Daniel Masi argued the cause for appellant (Law Office of Jerry Elashmawy, attorneys; Mr. Elashmawy, on the briefs). Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION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. Before Judges Reisner, Koblitz and Sumners. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Daniel Masi argued the cause for appellant (Law Office of Jerry Elashmawy, attorneys; Mr. Elashmawy, on the briefs). Gregory R. Bueno, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Christopher S. Porrino, Attorney General, attorney; Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel, Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Prison inmate Ajit Jayaram appeals from an October 13, 2015 disciplinary action taken against him by the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) after a hearing at which he was found guilty of *.205, misuse of authorized medication, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), and given a sanction of ninety-one days of administrative segregation, ninety days' loss of commutation time and fifteen days' loss of recreation privileges. Because the hearing officer did not articulate her reasons, which are not readily apparent from the evidence, we reverse and remand for another hearing at which Jayaram may choose to cross-examine the witness against him.
"Administrative segregation" is defined as "removal of an inmate from the general population of a correctional facility to a close custody unit because of one or more disciplinary infractions or other administrative considerations." N.J.A.C. 10A:1-2.2. The DOC contends administrative segregation is not solitary confinement because inmates have access to several services, including "five hours of recreation outside of [their] cell each week" and regular reviews by the mental health staff through the locked cell door.
[Mejia v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 446 N.J. Super. 369, 373 n.4 (App. Div. 2016).]
Jayaram, who is now seventy years old, is serving an aggregate sentence of nine years in prison with an eighty-five percent parole disqualifier for two attempted murder charges and fraud charges. Prior to his incarceration he was a medical doctor.
The DOC alleged that on October 1, 2015, Jayaram was given a blister pack containing thirty Neurontin (Gabapentin) 600 mg pills for his use to alleviate pain, to "KOP" (keep on person). He was directed to take two pills twice a day for a total of four pills each day. Four days later, a male nurse, J.H., checked and found that Jayaram had only six pills remaining. The nurse charged Jayaram with taking ten pills more than he was supposed to take, although in four days he would have been expected to take sixteen pills and have fourteen remaining, or eight more than actually were left. Jayaram claimed that he had requested and received verbal permission to take two more pills each day, for a total of six pills a day. Six pills a day for four days would result in twenty-four of the thirty pills gone and six remaining, exactly the number of pills he had left.
We use initials to preserve the confidentiality of the prison staff. --------
In finding Jayaram guilty, the hearing officer wrote on the form section entitled "Summary of evidence relied on to reach decision:"
MH eval noted. I/M [inmate] pled not guilty stating he was given an order per Dr. B[] to take 3 pills a day (per RN H[.]). J. H[.] reported that Jayaram was short 10 pills of Neurontin.
In the section titled "Reason(s) for sanction(s)" the hearing officer wrote, "Based on the evidence provided, there's a substantial amount to support the charge."
Jayaram, who the institution had placed on "the mental health roster," claimed that the hearing officer took evidence from the nurse over the telephone that the inmate could not hear. At our request, the DOC furnished us with a certification from the hearing officer stating that she did not hear any evidence, basing her decision on the documents alone. Her decision was upheld in an agency decision stating in total:
Uphold all sanctions as imposed by the Hearing Officer. There is no misinterpretation of the facts. The decision of the Hearing Officer is based on substantial evidence. The sanction imposed was proportionate to the offense. Your plea for leniency has been considered. No leniency will be afforded to you.
We are aware that penal institutions hold many disciplinary hearings and that no verbatim record is kept of the proceedings, nor detailed findings made. Although we have a limited role in reviewing agency decisions, we are not permitted to rubber stamp decisions that do not have an articulated rational basis. Mejia, supra, 446 N.J. Super. at 376-77. Our review is of no value if we cannot decipher the basis for the hearing officer's decision. In re Issuance of Permit by Dep't of Env't Prot., 120 N.J. 164, 172-73 (1990) (stating that an administrative agency performing a quasi-judicial function is obligated to set forth basic findings of facts supporting the ultimate conclusion so the reviewing tribunal may sufficiently review whether the actions were arbitrary and capricious). In this case, the hearing officer made no credibility findings despite a clear difference between Jayaram's explanation and J.H.'s explanation, cited the wrong number of pills Jayaram was permitted to take - even in light of J.H.'s version - and otherwise failed to issue a decision we can meaningfully review.
We therefore reverse and remand to allow Jayaram another hearing and note that, should he be sanctioned following the hearing, the reasons for the sanction must comply with N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.17(a), as clarified in Mejia, supra, 446 N.J. Super. at 378-79.
Reversed and remanded. We do not retain jurisdiction. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION