Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 13, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Jasper Frazier v. New Jersey Department of Corrections

New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: A-0194-24

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (6)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE 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.

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-0194-24

JASPER FRAZIER,

Appellant,

v.

NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

---

Submitted January 28, 2026 – Decided March 13, 2026

Before Judges Paganelli and Jacobs.

On appeal from the New Jersey Department of
Corrections.

Jasper Frazier, self-represented appellant.

Jennifer Davenport, Acting Attorney General, attorney
for respondent (Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney
General, of counsel; Andrew D. Spevack, Deputy
Attorney General, on the brief).

PER CURIAM
Jasper Frazier appeals from a final agency decision of the New Jersey

Department of Corrections (DOC) that denied his claim for lost property.

Because Frazier fails to sustain his burden to establish the DOC's decision was

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable, and there was sufficient evidence in the

record to uphold the denial, we affirm.

We glean the facts and procedural history from the record. On January

22, 2024, Frazier was incarcerated at East Jersey State Prison (EJSP) and

transferred to Northern State Prison (NSP). He states he "was only allowed to

take an over[]night bag" and the remainder of his personal property was to "be

ship[ped] at a later date." (Capitalization modified). Frazier claims that when

his property arrived, on February 22, 2024, "several items w[ere] missing."

(Capitalization modified). On April 12, 2024, Frazier returned to EJSP. On

May 17, 2024, Frazier completed an "Inmate Claim For Lost, Damaged Or

Destroyed Personal Property" form and claimed his "[M]oorish religion book"

was missing. (Capitalization modified). He stated he was transferred to NSP

and the "religious book was in [his] property" and when he "arrive[d] back to

EJSP the religious book was gone." In response to the form's request for

"documents supporting your claim, including receipts," Frazier stated , "see

[a]ttachments [f]ederal lawsuit [a]pprove religion."

A-0194-24
2
On August 8, 2024, the Business Manager disapproved the claim because

Frazier: (1) failed to timely file his claim; (2) had no receipts or appraisal forms

regarding the lost property; and (3) offered "[n]o proof of negligence on the part

of staff." On November 6, 2024, an EJSP Associate Administrator denied the

claim, and the matter was considered resolved.

On appeal, Frazier presents the following arguments: (1) DOC breached

the Interstate Correction Compact between Indiana and New Jersey; (2) DOC

was negligent in not preparing an inventory of his personal property in his

presence; (3) DOC violated its rules of conduct by making "false or misleading

statements"; (4) DOC negligently investigated his claim of lost property; and (5)

he was lawfully in possession of the Moorish religion book in accordance with

the Interstate Correction Compact between Indiana and New Jersey. 1

1
Frazier raises many arguments concerning issues that extend beyond the lost
property claim on appeal. We decline to consider these issues. Appellate courts
will normally not address issues that were not preserved before an agency.
See State v. Robinson, 200 N.J. 1, 20 (2009) (explaining that "[i]t is a well-
settled principle that our appellate courts will decline to consider questions or
issues not properly presented to the trial court . . . unless the questions . . . go to
the jurisdiction of the trial court or concern matters of great public interest."
(alteration in original) (quoting Nieder v. Royal Indem. Ins. Co., 62 N.J. 229,
234 (1973))); see also ZRB, LLC v. N.J. Dep't of Env't Prot., 403 N.J. Super.
531, 536 n.1 (App. Div. 2008) (applying the principle in Robinson and Nieder
to appeals from administrative agency orders).
A-0194-24
3
"There are well-recognized principles governing the judicial review of

administrative agency determinations. Appellate courts have 'a limited role' in

the review of such decisions." In re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 (2011)

(quoting Henry v. Rahway State Prison, 81 N.J. 571, 579 (1980)). We will not

reverse a decision of an administrative agency unless it is shown to be "arbitrary,

capricious or unreasonable or . . . not supported by substantial credible evidence

in the record as a whole." Henry, 81 N.J. at 580.

In determining whether agency action is arbitrary,
capricious, or unreasonable, a reviewing court must
examine:

(1) whether the agency's action violates
express or implied legislative policies, that
is, did the agency follow the law; (2)
whether the record contains substantial
evidence to support the findings on which
the agency based its action; and (3)
whether in applying the legislative policies
to the facts, the agency clearly erred in
reaching a conclusion that could not
reasonably have been made on a showing
of the relevant factors.

[Stallworth, 208 N.J. at 194 (quoting In re Carter, 191
N.J. 474, 482-83 (2007)).]

"The party challenging the agency action has the burden to show that the

administrative determination is arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable." In re

Renewal Application of TEAM Acad. Charter Sch., 247 N.J. 46, 73-74 (2021).

A-0194-24
4
At the time2 Frazier claims his property was lost, the regulations under

N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.1 provided:

(a) When an inmate claims the loss . . . of personal
property . . . the inmate shall complete and submit the
applicable form(s) for Inmate Claim For Lost,
Damaged Or Destroyed Personal Property to the
Administrator or designee.

(b) The Administrator or designee shall submit the
claim form(s) to the Correction Major or designee for
investigation and preparation of a report. The
investigation conducted by the Correction Major or
designee shall consist of, but not be limited to:

1. Obtaining statements from the inmate,
   witnesses and correctional facility staff;
   and

2. Verifying that the inmate was
   

   authorized to have and did in fact, possess
   the personal property named in the claim.

3. Verification of possession of lost,
   damaged or destroyed personal property
   may be made by review of applicable
   documentation such as the IIS-1M Inmate
   Inventory Sheet maintained by the
   correctional facility (see N.J.A.C. 10A:1-
   11).

(c) Upon completion of the investigation, the applicable
form(s) and a copy of the investigative report shall be

2
The regulations were amended and effective January 5, 2026. We quote the
version of the regulations in effect when Frazier submitted the claim.

A-0194-24
5
submitted to the Business Manager, or designee of the
correctional facility for review.

(d) The Business Manager or designee shall review the
applicable form(s) and the investigative report, and
complete the Certification of Inmate Claim form
indicating a recommendation to approve or deny the
claim with substantiating reasons.

(e) The claim packet shall include all applicable form(s)
and the investigative report. The claim packet shall be
submitted by the Business Manager or designee to the
Administrator for review and recommendation for
approval or denial.

(f) Claims that are denied by the Administrator shall not
be processed any further. In all cases of denial, the
inmate shall be notified of the denial in writing by the
Administrator with substantiating reasons.

....

N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2 provided:

(a) The following factors shall be considered before
recommending approval or disapproval of claims:

1. Whether the investigation revealed any
   neglect by the correctional facility;

2. Whether care was exercised by facility
   staff preventing property loss, damage or
   destruction;

3. Whether the inmate exercised care in
   preventing property loss, damage or
   destruction;

A-0194-24
6
4. Whether it has been proven that the
inmate was authorized to have and did, in
fact, possess the item(s) named in the
claim;

1. Whether sufficient information has been
   supplied by the inmate, including proper
   receipts, witnesses and investigative
   reports;

2. Whether the inmate submitted the claim
   in a timely manner;

3. Whether the loss or damage exceeds
   authorized amounts of correctional facility
   personal property limits;

4. Whether the personal property is
   considered contraband; and

5. Whether other reviewers recommended
   denial of the claim and the reasons
   therefor.

N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.3 provided:

(a) It shall be the responsibility of the inmate to
initiate a claim by completing the applicable
form(s) for an Inmate Claim For Lost, Damaged
or Destroyed Personal Property within 15
calendar days of the incident or discovery of the
incident.

(b) Unless there are exceptional circumstances
which require extending the investigative
process, the claim form and accompanying
documents shall be submitted to the Director,

A-0194-24
7
Office of Fiscal Management within 30 days of
the filing of the claim by the inmate.

Given our well-established deference to administrative agencies, we are

not convinced Frazier has established that the DOC's final agency decision was

arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable in denying his claim regarding the book.

Instead, the record reveals Frazier's claim was not filed in a timely manner under

N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.3; see N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(6). Moreover, the record

reflects the DOC followed the law and undertook investigative steps. However,

Frazier failed to provide "proper receipts" to value the book. See N.J.A.C.

10A:2-6.2(a)(5). Further, Frazier offered no evidence of DOC's negligence. See

N.J.A.C. 10A:2-6.2(a)(1). Under these circumstances, there is no basis for us to

disturb the DOC's decision.

Affirmed.

A-0194-24
8