Francisco v. N.J. Dep't of Corr.
| Decision Date | 09 March 2023 |
| Docket Number | A-1336-21 |
| Parties | NESTOR FRANCISCO, Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited. R. 1:36-3.
Argued February 6, 2023
On appeal from the New Jersey Department of Corrections.
Nestor Francisco, appellant, argued the cause pro se.
Christopher C. Josephson, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Matthew J. Platkin, Attorney General attorney; Donna Arons, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Christopher C. Josephson, on the brief).
Before Judges Mawla and Marczyk.
Appellant Nestor Francisco, appeals from a December 9, 2021 Final Agency Decision (FAD) of the New Jersey Department of Corrections (DOC) denying his request to translate legal documents, including his trial transcript, from English to Spanish. Having reviewed the record in light of the applicable legal principles, we affirm.
Appellant is a Spanish-speaking inmate at the New Jersey State Prison.[1]This dispute centers around appellant's request for access to bilingual services in the prison's law library and his request for the translation of various legal documents, including his trial transcript, which is over 1,000 pages long. Appellant stated he needed translation services so he could understand his trial records and prepare for his appeal.[2]
In July 2020, appellant submitted an inquiry wherein he claimed he was being denied adequate access to the prison law library and bilingual paralegals.
The prison responded, because of the COVID-19 social distancing restrictions, appellant needed to file a request form and indicate he needed a Spanishspeaking interpreter so one could be appropriately scheduled for appellant. Although appellant received assistance, he still filed inquiries and grievances in which he complained, among other things, he was not being given free translation services for his legal documents. The prison advised he could ask his attorney for translations and also extended his law library pass.
Appellant filed a grievance on October 12, 2021, requesting a translation. On December 9, 2021, the DOC responded:
The cost to translate the trial transcript is $31,877.85. This is not a reasonable cost for the [DOC] to incur.You may wish to contact the [c]ourt which provided the transcript or your defense attorney. In the alternative, the [DOC] has Spanish[-s]peaking paralegals that can assist with your legal questions. You also have [the] option to request additional law library [time.] Thank you[.]
On December 23, 2021, appellant responded the notice on the prison walls stated inmates were entitled to free translations and interpretation. [3] Appellant also asserted the paralegals were not qualified to translate his legal papers because they were not certified translators. The prison reiterated appellant already had access to the Spanish-speaking paralegals and he could request additional time in the law library.
Appellant raises the following points on appeal:
More particularly, appellant claims he needs assistance in translating "[c]ourt [r]ules, [e]vidence [r]ules, [c]riminal [c]ode[s], [c]ase [l]aw, legal briefs, [and] trial transcripts[,]" and neither Spanish-speaking paralegal is able to meet his needs because they are not "certified translators" and could only help with the translation of certain documents.[4] Appellant further contends he should have access to translation software. Appellant argues he was advised the paralegals could translate documents, but could not translate extended briefs or entire transcripts. He further asserts the DOC must honor the posted notifications that no-cost interpreting services would be provided for matters involving "safety, quasi-legal, medical, mental health, and programming ...."
The DOC counters it properly denied appellant's request for a translation of his trial transcript because of the exorbitant cost of the transcript and appellant's ability to obtain interpreting services through his public defender. In addition, the DOC reiterated it had provided Spanish-speaking paralegals at the law library to assist appellant with his questions. It further asserted the prison notice regarding interpreter services is for assistance dealing with staff and processes within the prison and not for the purpose of translating voluminous legal transcripts. The DOC maintains appellant's access to the law library, the availability of an interpreter through appellant's public defender, coupled with the prison providing Spanish-speaking paralegals, satisfies appellant's right to legal access to the courts. The DOC observes that notwithstanding its recommendation for appellant to contact his defense attorney, who assisted him on his direct appeal, it does not appear appellant has done so. [5]
We begin by addressing our standard of review and general governing legal principles. Our review of agency determinations is limited. See In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011); Brady v. Bd. of Rev., 152 N.J. 197, 210 (1997); Figueroa v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 414 N.J.Super. 186, 190 (App. Div. 2010). We will not reverse an administrative agency's decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, or not supported by substantial credible evidence in the record as a whole." Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (citation omitted); accord Jenkins v. N.J. Dep't of Corr., 412 N.J.Super. 243, 259 (App. Div. 2010).
In determining whether an agency action is arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, we consider whether: (1) The agency followed the law; (2) substantial evidence supports the findings; and (3) the agency "clearly erred" in applying the "legislative policies to the facts." In re Carter, 191 N.J. 474, 48283 (2007) (quoting Mazza v. Bd. of Trs., 143 N.J. 22, 25 (1995)). Applying that well-established standard, we accord particular deference to the expertise and "broad discretionary powers" of the Commissioner of Corrections in managing the State prisons pursuant to his statutory responsibilities. See, e.g., Jenkins v. Fauver, 108 N.J. 239, 252 (1987).
"We cannot substitute our judgment for that of the agency where its findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record." Johnson v. Dep't of Corr., 375 N.J.Super. 347, 352 (App. Div. 2005) (citation omitted). "The burden of demonstrating that the agency's action was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable rests upon the [party] challenging the administrative action." In re Arenas, 385 N.J.Super. 440, 443-44 (App. Div. 2006).
"Prisoners have a constitutional right of access to the courts." Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 821 (1977), abrogated by Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343 (1996). "The fundamental constitutional right of access to the courts requires prison authorities to assist inmates in the preparation and filing of meaningful legal papers by providing prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law." Lewis, 518 U.S. at 346 (quoting Bounds, 430 U.S. at 828). However, because there is no "abstract, freestanding right to a law library or legal assistance, an inmate cannot establish relevant actual injury simply by establishing that his prison's law library or legal assistance program is subpar in some theoretical sense." Id. at 351. New Jersey recognizes the constitutional right of access to the courts and providing inmates with adequate law libraries and resources in its legal access regulations set forth in N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.1 to -2.16.
Guided by the foregoing principles, we determine the DOC did not abuse its discretion, and appellant has failed to demonstrate the DOC did not provide him with meaningful access to the courts, given the availability of Spanishspeaking paralegals and access to the prison library. Initial...
To continue reading
Request your trial