SILVANO COLLADO VS. ELI M. SALZMANN (L-4337-12, HUDSON COUNTY AND STATEWIDE)
A-3383-14T2
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | Aug 22, 2017Background
- Shawn July, serving a lengthy sentence for aggravated manslaughter, weapons, and drug offenses, was identified as a member of a Security Threat Group (STG).
- After stabbing another inmate during a gang dispute at East Jersey State Prison, July was transferred to New Jersey State Prison and placed in prehearing involuntary protective custody (IPC).
- SID conducted an investigation and prepared a confidential report concluding July violated gang etiquette and faced safety risks if returned to the general population.
- July received notice and an IPC hearing before a Disciplinary Hearing Officer (DHO); he had a counsel substitute, testified, and submitted witness statements and documentary evidence.
- The DHO relied on the SID confidential report, found July’s evidence unpersuasive, continued his IPC placement, and referred his case for possible transfer; the NJSP administrator affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether continued IPC placement violated due process | July: IPC placement and long delay deprived him of substantive and procedural due process | DOC: IPC placement is regulatory (safety) not punitive; procedures were followed | Court: No due process violation; IPC is not an atypical, significant deprivation under Sandin; procedures were substantially followed |
| Whether evidence supporting IPC was sufficient | July: SID report was uncorroborated; his witness statements undermined placement | DOC: SID confidential report and investigation provided a reasonable basis to protect safety and security | Court: Substantial credible evidence supported continued IPC placement |
| Whether DOC complied with IPC regulations and hearing requirements | July: Delay in SID report and length between placement and hearing violated regulations and rights | DOC: Procedural requirements (notice, counsel substitute, opportunity to present evidence) were met; delay not prejudicial in non-punitive proceeding | Court: DOC substantially complied with N.J.A.C. procedures; any delay did not prejudice July |
| Whether agency decision was arbitrary or capricious | July: Decision lacked reasonable basis | DOC: Decision presumes reasonableness and is supported by investigation | Court: Agency decision not arbitrary or capricious; affirmed under limited scope of review |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (administrative segregation/protective custody typically do not create a protected liberty interest)
- In re Taylor, 158 N.J. 644 (1999) (scope of appellate review of agency decisions)
- Brady v. Bd. of Review, 152 N.J. 197 (1997) (standards for reviewing agency action)
- Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571 (1980) (agency decisions reversed only when arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by substantial evidence)
- Ramirez v. Dep’t of Corr., 382 N.J. Super. 18 (App. Div. 2005) (substantial evidence standard in DOC contexts)
- Figueroa v. N.J. Dep’t of Corr., 414 N.J. Super. 186 (App. Div. 2010) (definition and application of substantial evidence)