ANTHONY MALACOW VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS)
197 A.3d 1151
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2018Background
- Inmate Anthony Malacow was charged after officers found suspected tobacco and paraphernalia; he was ordered to provide a 30 mL urine sample within two hours and did not do so. He was charged with, inter alia, prohibited act *.259 (failure to submit for testing).
- At the disciplinary hearing Malacow received a psychological evaluation required by prior federal settlement; the evaluator found he was mentally ill but competent and that mental illness did not cause the infraction.
- Malacow was granted a counsel substitute, did not call witnesses or cross-examine, and the hearing officer (HO) found him guilty of *.259.
- The HO imposed sanctions: 15 days loss of recreation, 91 days administrative segregation, loss of 90 days commutation time, 365 days urine monitoring, permanent loss of contact visits (with a regulatory process to apply for restoration after one year), and a mental-health follow-up. The DOC affirmed the finding and sanctions.
- Malacow appealed arguing he provided an adequate sample, his due process rights were violated, video evidence was ignored, and his counsel substitute was ineffective; the court rejected most procedural claims but found the sanctions lacked meaningful articulation of individualized reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Guilt of *.259 (failure to provide specimen) | Malacow contended he provided the required amount | DOC relied on HO finding that he failed to provide sample within time | Court upheld guilty finding; substantial-evidence review supports agency factfinding |
| Due process / hearing fairness | Malacow claimed violations (notice, counsel effectiveness, ignored video) | DOC maintained procedures and rights (waiver of 24‑hour notice, counsel substitute provided) | Court found no due-process violation; procedural protections under Avant satisfied |
| Adequacy of sanctions’ reasons | Malacow argued sanctions unjustified and not explained | DOC argued sanctions were within regulatory limits and relatively lenient so no detailed reasons needed | Court remanded: HO must articulate individualized reasons for sanctions consistent with N.J.A.C. 10A:4‑9.17(a) and Mejia |
| Consideration of mental health in sanctioning | Malacow noted evaluator found mental illness; argued this should affect sanctions (e.g., administrative segregation) | DOC pointed to evaluator’s conclusion that mental illness did not contribute to misconduct and that administrative segregation was permissible | Court noted evaluator’s limited utility given 91‑day segregation; remanded so HO can state whether and how mental‑health factors were considered when imposing sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Mejia v. New Jersey Dep’t of Corr., 446 N.J. Super. 369 (App. Div. 2016) (requires individualized articulation of sanctioning factors)
- Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975) (due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
- Circus Liquors, Inc. v. Governing Body of Middletown Twp., 199 N.J. 1 (2009) (standard of appellate review of administrative agency decisions)
- Campbell v. N.J. Racing Comm’n, 169 N.J. 579 (2001) (deference to agency expertise but not rubber-stamp review)
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980) (review standard: reverse if decision arbitrary, capricious or unsupported)
- In re Issuance of Permit by Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 120 N.J. 164 (1990) (agencies must disclose factual findings to permit meaningful appellate review)
- Bailey v. Bd. Review, 339 N.J. Super. 29 (App. Div. 2001) (deference when record shows careful consideration and findings)