JOSE ORTIZ VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONSÂ (NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), A-3089-15T1

Jose Ortiz, an inmate at the New Jersey Adult Diagnostic and Treatment Center, was assigned to kitchen work and was directed on Feb 21, 2016 to perform cooking duties different from his usual assignment.
Ortiz refused the direction, claiming a bad knee and that he did not want to cook; instructor Bianca Olowe and officer Hassan witnessed the refusal and Olowe terminated Ortiz's assignment.
Ortiz was charged with violating prohibited act .256 (refusing to obey a staff order), pleaded not guilty, had a counsel substitute, and a disciplinary hearing occurred (concluded Mar 2, 2016).
Hearing officer found Olowe and Hassan credible, credited witnesses that Ortiz said he wanted a different job (line service), and upheld the charge; imposed 30 days administrative segregation, 30 days loss of commutation, and 10 hours extra duty.
DOC reduced segregation to 15 days and suspended it for 60 days in its final decision (Mar 8, 2016); Ortiz appealed to this Court challenging sufficiency of evidence and due process principles.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Ortiz refused a staff order	Ortiz says he only said he didn’t want to cook because of a bad knee and sought reassignment	DOC: Olowe and Hassan witnessed repeated orders and Ortiz’s refusal; witnesses corroborate he declined cooking	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports refusal finding
Due process — access to witnesses' written statements	Ortiz claims DOC failed to produce his witnesses’ written statements at hearing	DOC shows statements were admitted as exhibits and Ortiz acknowledged same on adjudication form	Affirmed — statements were part of the record and available at hearing
Due process — adequacy of hearing officer’s written reasons	Ortiz contends DOC did not fully explain basis for its decision	DOC provided detailed hearing officer findings and final decision stating reliance on substantial evidence	Affirmed — hearing officer and DOC provided sufficient reasons
Alleged hearing officer bias / fundamental fairness	Ortiz (via counsel substitute letter) alleges hearing officer prejudged and was intemperate	DOC: allegations not raised at hearing; record shows hearing officer considered all evidence	Not considered on appeal (procedural forfeiture); alternatively, no reversible bias shown

George Harms Constr. Co. v. N.J. Tpk. Auth., 137 N.J. 8 (1994) (scope of judicial review of agency action is severely limited)
McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995) (limited due process protections for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (1995) (standards for reviewing DOC disciplinary decisions)
Figueroa v. New Jersey Dep't of Corrections, 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010) (substantial evidence standard in DOC disciplinary appeals)
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1975) (enumeration of inmates’ limited due process rights in disciplinary hearings)
State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1 (2009) (refusal to consider issues not raised below except in narrow circumstances)
Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229 (1973) (issue preservation and appellate review principles)