KEVIN JACKSON VS. GARY M. LANIGAN(L-256-14, CUMBERLAND COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-1815-15T3

Background

Kevin Jackson, a state prison inmate, was charged in 2008 with two disciplinary infractions; he was found guilty of an asterisk offense (*.009 — possession/misuse of an electronic communication device) and sanctioned to administrative segregation.
Jackson received notice, a DOC investigation within 48 hours, a hearing with a counsel substitute, and administrative appeal to the prison administrator (initially upheld).
Jackson appealed to this court; the matter was remanded for further proceedings and a rehearing was held where he again was found guilty of the *.009 infraction and administrative sanctions were upheld.
This court previously reversed, finding the disciplinary charges lacked competent evidence and ordered the infractions removed and sanctions expunged; Jackson’s custody and visitation were later restored and he was transferred.
Jackson then filed a civil complaint alleging constitutional and tort claims against DOC officials for fabricating disciplinary charges; the trial court (Judge Fineman) granted defendants’ motion (converted to summary judgment) and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, concluding DOC complied with required procedural protections and there was no state constitutional violation under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether summary judgment was premature and factual disputes exist	Jackson argued genuine disputes (fabrication, immunity, missing impeachment evidence) required trial	Defendants argued record shows no material factual dispute and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law	Affirmed summary judgment — no genuine dispute defeating judgment as a matter of law
Whether defendants are immune for alleged fabrication of charges	Jackson contended officers lack absolute immunity for deliberate misconduct	Defendants asserted qualified/official immunities and procedural compliance	Court concluded procedural protections were provided; no state constitutional violation established
Whether DOC disciplinary proceedings violated procedural due process under NJ law/Act	Jackson claimed denial of impeachment evidence, inability to call witnesses, and other hearing defects	Defendants pointed to notice, counsel substitute, cross-examination, written statement of reasons, and administrative appeals provided	Held DOC afforded Avant rights (notice, hearing, counsel substitute, confrontation, written reasons); no violation of Act
Whether the Civil Rights Act (N.J.S.A. 10:6-1 et seq.) provides relief for the alleged conduct	Jackson relied on Act to vindicate state constitutional violations from disciplinary process	Defendants argued Acts’ protections were not violated because procedures met required standards and prior reversal remedied claim	Court held no actionable violation under the Act and affirmed dismissal

Key Cases Cited

Henry v. N.J. Dep't of Human Servs., 204 N.J. 320 (plenary review of summary judgment standard)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard; no genuine issue of material fact)
Rivera v. Bd. of Review, 127 N.J. 578 (procedural due process notice and hearing principles)
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (inmate disciplinary procedural protections and counsel substitute rules)
Owens v. Feigin, 194 N.J. 607 (purpose of the New Jersey Civil Rights Act)
Tumpson v. Farina, 218 N.J. 450 (interpretation and scope of the State Civil Rights Act vis-à-vis § 1983)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (standard for summary judgment and "genuine issue" inquiry)