HAKEEM ALLEN VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSÂ (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), A-5360-15T4

Background

Inmate Hakeem Allen, at East Jersey State Prison, was charged after a May 8, 2016 incident in which officers allege he approached them aggressively with clenched fists and said, “Why, what are you going to do about it?” Two officers sustained minor injuries and Allen was subdued and placed in prehearing detention.
Charges: guilty of .005 (threatening another with bodily harm) and .306 (conduct disrupting institutional security); not guilty of .803/.002 (attempted assault).
DOC investigation produced reports, use-of-force documentation, medical records, witness statements, a confidential mental-health report, and written Q&A responses from the two officers confronted during the incident.
Allen requested a polygraph during the hearing; Administrator Nogan denied it, concluding the record sufficed for credibility determinations. Allen also sought confrontation/cross-examination of the two officers via written questions; the officers answered to the extent possible and Allen declined to submit supplemental questions.
Hearing Officer Nolley found Allen guilty of .005 and .306 and imposed administrative segregation, loss of commutation time, and loss of privileges; the Assistant Superintendent adopted the hearing officer’s decision on administrative appeal. Allen appealed to the Appellate Division.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Allen was denied due process by inadequate confrontation/cross-examination	Allen says hearing officer failed to require officers to responsively answer his written questions, impeding confrontation rights	DOC says officers attempted to answer; Allen could submit follow-ups but declined; procedural protections were provided	Denied — confrontation was adequate under Avant and DOC regs; no prejudice shown
Whether denial of polygraph was arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable	Allen contends polygraph was necessary because credibility was central and charges were serious	DOC argues polygraph is discretionary, not a right; record contained corroborating evidence making polygraph unnecessary	Denied — polygraph request discretionary and properly denied because corroborating evidence negated a serious credibility question (Ramirez standard)
Whether findings of guilt were supported by substantial credible evidence	Allen argues the evidence did not support guilty findings	DOC points to officers’ observations, use-of-force and incident reports, injuries, and corroborating records	Denied — substantial credible evidence supports guilty findings for .005 and .306
Whether administrative findings were inadequate	Allen contends assistant administrator failed to provide adequate findings of fact	DOC notes hearing officer issued written findings and administrator may adopt them without restating all facts	Denied — hearing officer’s written decision satisfied requirements; administrator may rely on it

Key Cases Cited

Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (standard for reviewing administrative action)
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (due process protections in prison disciplinary proceedings)
McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (codification and balance of prison disciplinary procedures)
Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (procedural safeguards in prison disciplinary contexts)
Ramirez v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (polygraph requests are discretionary; denial reviewed for arbitrariness)
Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (appellate-review obligations and standards in DOC disciplinary appeals)