SHAMSIDDIN ABDUR-RAHEEM VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS(NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS), A-3670-14T4

Background

Inmate Shamsiddin Abdur-Raheem was found with a folded note and two small envelopes containing a white powder hidden in a toilet-paper roll during a routine cell search; charged with *.203 possession/introduction of prohibited substance.
Substance sent to NJ State Police Lab (received by lab within 4 days), but lab results were not provided to the prison’s Courtline system until ~5 months later; hearing was postponed pending results.
Lab testing (GC-MS, etc.) identified the substance as bupropion, a prescription drug for which appellant had no prescription; hearing resumed after results arrived.
Appellant requested numerous tests and evidence (polygraph, video, DNA, fingerprints, urinalysis, handwriting analysis, witnesses); DHO granted limited postponements but denied most requests as irrelevant or unnecessary.
DHO found appellant guilty, imposed sanctions (90 days administrative segregation with credit for time served, loss of communication, 365 days urine monitoring, permanent loss of contact visits); Prison Administrator affirmed; appellant appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of hearing / Due process delay	Delay (~6 months) in hearing while on pre-hearing detention violated N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.8(c) and constituted due process violation	Delay was justified because lab results were necessary; Courtline diligently pursued lab and delay alone doesn’t mandate dismissal under N.J.A.C. 10A:4-9.9(a)	Court upheld hearing timing: waiting for lab results was an unavoidable delay and DHO properly exercised discretion not to dismiss
Denial of polygraph	Requested polygraph; claimed denial violated due process	Polygraph not a required right; denial discretionary and permissible where corroborating evidence exists	Denial upheld: no right to polygraph and corroborating evidence (note, envelopes, bupropion) sufficed
Denial of other evidence/tests (video, urinalysis, fingerprints, handwriting, witnesses)	Such tests could exculpate or were necessary for fairness	Many requests were irrelevant or would not exculpate (possession vs use; no video exists; handwriting/fingerprint unlikely/revealing)	Denials did not negate fundamental fairness; requests properly denied as irrelevant or unnecessary
Adequacy of counsel substitute assistance	Counsel substitute failed to provide adequate assistance; signature on adjudication form inaccurate	Counsel substitute met limited regulatory role: met with inmate, reviewed evidence, sought delays, assisted at hearing; signature reflects hearing record	Court found counsel substitute competent under Avant standards; no denial of right to assistance

Key Cases Cited

Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div.) (limited role of appellate review of agency decisions)
Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 412 N.J. Super. 243 (App. Div.) (deferential review; standards for reversal of agency action)
Williams v. Dep't of Corr., 330 N.J. Super. 197 (App. Div.) (need for careful agency-record review and balance between prison security and inmate rights)
Avant v. Clifford, 67 N.J. 496 (1995) (due process rights in prison disciplinary context; counsel substitute framework)
McDonald v. Pinchak, 139 N.J. 188 (1995) (right to counsel substitute and signature on adjudication form importance)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (due process baseline for prison disciplinary proceedings)
Ramirez v. Dep't of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div.) (polygraph requests discretionary; corroboration obviates need)
Johnson v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 298 N.J. Super. 79 (App. Div.) (no right to polygraph)
Negron v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 220 N.J. Super. 425 (App. Div.) (time-limit violations do not automatically mandate dismissal)
Ortiz v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 406 N.J. Super. 63 (App. Div.) (exhaustion of administrative remedies required for court review)