Preview:

a4414-06.opn.html
The status of this decision is unpublished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(NOTE: The status of this decision is unpublished.)
NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE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-4414-06T24414-06T2
CARL ANDERSON,
Appellant,
v.
NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
Submitted August 27, 2008 - Decided
Before Judges A. A. Rodríguez and Lihotz.
On appeal from a Final Agency Decision of the Department of Corrections.
Carl Anderson, appellant, pro se.
Anne Milgram, Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lewis A. Scheindlin, Assistant
Attorney General, of counsel; Susan M. Scott, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Inmate Carl Anderson is incarcerated at Trenton State Prison. He appeals from his placement in involuntary
protective custody status. We affirm.
On January 2, 2007, Special Investigations Division Investigator Raphael Dolce received confidential
information that the "Bloods" gang and other members of a Security Threat Group were going to assault Anderson
in retaliation for an assault Anderson had allegedly ordered on another inmate. Anderson was immediately placed in
involuntary protective custody. Dolce conducted an investigation. Two separate sources indicated to Dolce that the
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4414-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:54:54 PM]




a4414-06.opn.html
threat against Anderson was valid. Anderson refused to cooperate with Dolce.
Three weeks later, Dolce issued a report. As a result, Anderson was served with notice of a protective custody
hearing. At the hearing, and based on Dolce's report, the hearing officer ordered that the inmate remain in
protective custody status to ensure his safety.
Anderson appealed to the Prison Administrator. The Administrator upheld the hearing officer's decision. Anderson
moved for reconsideration. The Administrator denied the motion. This constitutes a final agency decision of the
Department of Corrections (DOC).
Anderson appealed to us. While the appeal was pending, the DOC moved for a temporary remand. We granted the
application, M-3125-07 (App. Div. February 26, 2008).
A new protective custody hearing was held. At the hearing, Anderson was offered the assistance of counsel
substitute and the opportunity to obtain witness statements. He declined both and did not provide any
documentary evidence. Anderson stated only that he sought release from protective custody. Hearing Officer
Maniscalco found that Anderson should remain in protective custody status to ensure his safety.
On appeal, Anderson contends:
THE FINAL DECISION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS SHOULD BE REVERSED
BECAUSE ANDERSON'S PLACEMENT IN THE PROTECTIVE CUSTODY UNIT WAS NOT
DETERMINED TO BE BASED ON RELIABLE EVIDENCE, THE HEARING OFFICER'S DECISION
VIOLATED THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND ANDERSON'S RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING.
THE DECISION OF THE ASSOCIATE ADMINISTRATOR TO UPHOLD THE APPELLANT'S
PLACEMENT IN PROTECTIVE CUSTODY WAS CONTRARY TO ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
We reject these contentions.
At the outset, we note that Anderson is not appealing from a disciplinary action. He has been placed in
protective custody not as a punishment but for his own safety. He cannot waive this protection because the DOC is
responsible for his safety while incarcerated. N.J.S.A. 30:1B-3c. Anderson has no "liberty interest" in his present
status. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300, 132 L. Ed.2d 418, 429-30 (1995). This is because
administrative confinement, such as protective custody, does not deprive an inmate of a constitutionally recognized
liberty interest. Ibid.; Griffin v. Vaughn, 112 F.3d 703 (3d Cir. 1997).
Anderson was not subjected to an atypical and significant hardship. Sandin, supra, 515 U.S. at 484, 115 S. Ct.
at 2300, 132 L. Ed. 2d at 429-30. See also Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506, 522-23 (3d Cir. 2002), holding that transfer
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4414-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:54:54 PM]




a4414-06.opn.html
to a security threat group management does not implicate a liberty interest. In Fraise, the inmates were transferred
because they were perceived to be a threat to others. Therefore, placement in protective custody in order to
safeguard an inmate that has been threatened does not implicate a liberty interest.
Accordingly, we find no basis upon which to disturb the findings and conclusions of the DOC.
Our review has also included an examination of the process and procedures afforded Anderson by the DOC.
We conclude that these procedures ensured Anderson received the level of rights generally accorded to prison
inmates as determined by law, which include written notice of the claimed violations, disclosure of evidence, the
opportunity to be heard and to present witnesses and documentary evidence, the right to confront and cross-
examine adverse witnesses, a neutral and detached hearing body, and a written statement by the factfinders as to
evidence relied on and reasons for acting. McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188, 195; Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496, 523
(1975).
Affirmed.
(continued)
(continued)
5
A-4414-06T2
September 15, 2008
0x01 graphic
This archive is a service of Rutgers School of Law - Camden.
file:///C|/Users/Peter/Desktop/Opinions/a4414-06.opn.html[4/20/2013 4:54:54 PM]

Download a4414-06.opn.pdf

New Jersey Law