Opinion
DOCKET NO. A-0277-14T1
06-21-2016
AGUSTIN GARCIA, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent.
Agustin Garcia, appellant pro se. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (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NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION Before Judges Rothstadt and Currier. On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections. Agustin Garcia, appellant pro se. Robert Lougy, Acting Attorney General, attorney for respondent (Lisa A. Puglisi, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Randy Miller, Deputy Attorney General, on the brief). PER CURIAM
Appellant Agustin Garcia is currently incarcerated in state prison serving a life sentence with a mandatory minimum term of thirty years for first degree murder and two charges of weapon possession. He appeals the June 12, 2014 decision of the Administrator of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request for extended library access. For the reasons set forth, we affirm.
In March 2014, defendant submitted an Inmate Remedy System Form requesting extended law library access. In response, the DOC issued an Inmate Remedy System Corrective Action Form denying the request, and advising that "[e]xtended legal access is granted to inmates who are (1) pro se (2) have emergent matter due to impending court date/deadline or trial." In addition, the form notified that an inmate seeking to qualify for additional access must submit documentation from the court or judge verifying the approaching event.
In response, defendant submitted a letter to the prison's Assistant Administrator, attaching two federal court orders from different cases dated August 1, 2012, and January 27, 2014.
The DOC responded to defendant's letter and denied the request for extended legal access. The memorandum explained that the "request for extended legal access did not include a court document indicating a deadline. The document provided was dated January 30, 2014 and did not indicate a deadline." Defendant's appeal to the Administrator was denied.
On appeal, defendant alleges that the denial of extended legal access has deprived him of his constitutional rights to due process, access to the courts, and equal protection under the law.
Our role in reviewing an agency decision is limited. Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997). We will reverse a final agency decision only if "it is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or [if] it lacks fair support in the record." In re Herrmann, 192 N.J. 19, 27-28 (2007).
We recognize the rights afforded to inmates to pursue their legal remedies. N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.3(b) provides that "[b]ased on the availability of space, supervisory staff and the security needs of the correctional facility, the Administrator or designee shall determine those inmates who may have direct personal access to legal reference materials and related services." This regulation vests authority in the prison and its administrators to develop a system that balances the needs of inmates in proportion to the DOC's concerns for maintaining order, efficiency, and security. Here, the DOC has limited extended law library access to inmates who face impending court deadlines and appearances, thus requiring additional tools and resources because of the limited time period.
We find insufficient merit in defendant's arguments to warrant further discussion in a written opinion, R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(D). Defendant was provided library time; he was only denied extended library access. He did not provide an impending deadline or upcoming court date, as reasonably required by the DOC to justify extended library time. We conclude that the DOC's actions were neither arbitrary, capricious nor unreasonable.
Affirmed. I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of the original on file in my office.
CLERK OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION