RANDY B. ROSENBLATT VS. VINCENT STRIPTO, ESQ.Â (L-12-13, MONMOUTH COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-0177-15T4

Appellant Thomas Clauso, an inmate at East Jersey State Prison, was charged with DOC prohibited act *.005 (threatening bodily harm) after prison-monitored telephone calls on April 7, 2015 revealed admissions that he had mailed a threatening letter to a judge and made additional menacing statements (e.g., "If I had a gun I would kill them all").
Disciplinary hearing was delayed due to Clauso's hunger strike and hospitalization; a mental-health clearance was obtained and a hearing was scheduled in August 2015, which Clauso refused to attend.
Evidence at the hearing included a transcript of the monitored call, an audio tape (not in the appellate record), shift reports, postponement records, and a previously written provocative letter to a federal judge.
Hearing officer found Clauso guilty of *.005 and imposed 365 days administrative segregation, 365 days loss of commutation time, and 15 days loss of recreation; the Administrator reduced administrative segregation to time served but left other sanctions in place.
Clauso appealed, arguing (1) the finding was arbitrary and unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) prolonged 24-hour isolation violated the Eighth Amendment, and (3) procedural due-process defects in the disciplinary hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Substantial-evidence for *.005 (threat)	Clauso: statements were expressions of frustration, not true threats or intent to harm	DOC: monitored admissions and menacing language objectively conveyed fear and threat	Court: Affirmed — objective analysis controls; admissions and menacing statements provide substantial evidence (Jacobs framework)
Need for recipient/witness to prove threat	Clauso: target (judge) was not a party and recipient not called as witness	DOC: Clauso's own admissions and recorded statements suffice to establish the threat	Court: Held it was not essential to call recipient; admissions were sufficient to prove threatening conduct
Procedural due process at hearing	Clauso: denied fair opportunity to attend/participate; paralegal failed to present defense; hearing conducted improperly	DOC: inmate refused to appear; in-absentia proceedings and procedural protections complied with DOC regs	Court: Affirmed — hearing and administrative review satisfied procedural requirements; in‑absentia hearing permissible when inmate refuses to appear
Eighth Amendment challenge to prolonged isolation	Clauso: 24-hour isolation for 146 days constituted cruel and unusual punishment	DOC: not directly litigated in this appeal from disciplinary adjudication	Court: Declined to reach the Eighth Amendment/conditions-of-confinement claim in this disciplinary-appeal posture

Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (discusses standard for reviewing prison disciplinary decisions)
Jacobs v. Stephens, 139 N.J. 212 (adopts objective-analysis test for whether inmate statement constitutes a threat)
Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243 (standards for appellate review of DOC disciplinary decisions)
In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474 (framework for reviewing agency action: law followed, substantial evidence, policy application)
In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182 (courts should not substitute their judgment for agency's in prison administration)