Preview:

a2915-05.opn.html
Original Wordprocessor Version
(NOTE: The status of this decision is Unpublished.) Original Wordprocessor Version
This case can also be found at *CITE_PENDING*.
(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2915-05T52915-05T5
ABDUS-SABUR FAKHIR,
Appellant,
vs.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Submitted: December 13, 2006 - Decided January 11, 2007
Before Judges Cuff and Baxter.
On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.
Abdus-Sabur Fakhir, appellant pro se.
Stuart Rabner, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Patrick DeAlmeida, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Sarah B. Campbell, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
This is a prison disciplinary appeal. A hearing officer found appellant Abdus-Sabur Fakhir guilty of conduct that
disrupts or interferes with the security or orderly running of the correctional facility, *.306, contrary to N.J.A.C. 10A:4-
4.1. He received a sanction of fifteen days detention, 300 days administrative segregation and 300 days loss of
commutation time. Following an unsuccessful appeal to the prison administrator, the inmate filed his notice of
appeal.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2915-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:39:30 PM]




a2915-05.opn.html
On appeal, the inmate raises the following contentions:
THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND SHOULD BE
MODIFIED.
THE HEARIN[G] OFFICER'S DECISION FAILED TO ARTICULATE FACTS ESTABLISHING
APPELLANT'S GUILT.
LEGAL POINT #1
The decision of the Hearing Officer should be Modified Because the decision was not
Based Upon Substantial Credible Evidence.
LEGAL POINT #2
The Hearing Officer Errored by Denying Appellant Access to Polygraph Examination.
LEGAL POINT #3
The Hearing Officer Errored by Denying Appellant Confrontation and Cross
Examination.
We affirm.
Appellant's contentions are reviewed in accordance with our scope of review. If the disposition of the disciplinary
action is supported by credible evidence in the record, we must affirm. Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571,
579-80 (1980). Stated differently, we may reverse only when the agency decision is arbitrary, unreasonable,
unsupported by credible evidence in the record or contrary to law. Ibid. Here, contrary to appellant's argument, we
are satisfied that the finding that Fakhir created a disturbance during a religious ceremony and refused to obey an
order by a corrections officer is supported by substantial credible evidence in the record.
Moreover, this inmate received all the process he is due. See McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 202-03 (1995);
Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212, 225-27 (1995); Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 529 (1975). Fakhir received twenty-
four hours' notice of the charge prior to the hearing, the hearing was timely, the hearing was conducted by a
member of the agency hearing officer staff, counsel substitute was assigned, the inmate and counsel substitute had
the opportunity to make a statement, and the inmate and counsel substitute obtained and submitted witness
statements.
Furthermore, Fakhir's contention that his request for a polygraph examination was arbitrarily denied is not properly
before this court. Fakhir did not raise this issue on his appeal to the prison administrator, and this court does not
entertain exceptions raised for the first time on appeal to this court. Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229, 234
(1973).
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2915-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:39:30 PM]




a2915-05.opn.html
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
4
A-2915-05T5
January 11, 2007
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a2915-05.opn.html[4/20/2013 3:39:30 PM]

Download a2915-05.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law