# Avant v. Clifford > Supreme Court of New Jersey · June 23, 1975 · 67 N.J. 496 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9651487 ## Case - **Full name:** THOMAS X. AVANT, RICHARD ANDERSON, CLIFTON BRANDON, JAMES CAGLE, RONALD CRAWFORD, ROBERT CUTLER, GEARY GLASSPIE, ANDREW X. HOLIDAY, JOHN JOHNSON, JR., LEONARD JOHNSON, THOMAS J. KARTNER, CHARLES LEE, KENNETH T. MARKS, DWIGHT MASON, JAMES McKEEVER, GREGORY MELVUS, ELLSWORTH X. SMITH, THOMAS MILTON STEVENS, JR., DONALD D. WASHINGTON, JOHN WILBELY, THOMAS WOOTON, JEROME AUSTELL, ALFRED AUSTELL, JOHN RICHARD MILLER AND ANTHONY M. PUCHALSKI, INMATES OF THE NEW JERSEY STATE PRISON SYSTEM, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, AND STEPHEN M. NAGLER, a NEW JERSEY RESIDENT AND a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC-AT-LARGE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT L. CLIFFORD, COMMISSIONER OF THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES AND THE NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF INSTITUTIONS AND AGENCIES, DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS - **Court:** Supreme Court of New Jersey - **Decided:** June 23, 1975 - **Citations:** 67 N.J. 496; 341 A.2d 629; 1975 N.J. LEXIS 205 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Conford - **Judges:** Hughes, Pashman, Conford - **Cited by:** 264 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9651487 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating that, when appropriate, a "hearing officer may choose a sufficiently competent staff member or inmate to provide assistance" (emphasis 2 N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.13 and N.J.A.C. 10A:6-2.14 provide guidelines concerning the required training to become an inmate paralegal and ge… - recognizing that standards sufficient to guide exercise of delegated power need not be expressly stated if they may be reasonably inferred from statutory scheme as whole - finding various statutes created "a whole spectrum of purposes, standards, guidelines and goals for imprisonment and corrections" sufficient to provide adequate standards for statutory delegation of authority to Commissioner of the Department of Institutions and Agencies to pr… - recognizing that standards sufficient to *127 guide exercise of delegated power need not be expressly stated if they may be reasonably inferred from statutory scheme as whole - concluding that although membership of prison board satisfied due process requirements, “rightness and fairness” required certain modifications ## Opinion text Conford, P. J. A. D., Temporarily Assigned (concurring). I join the comprehensive and epochal opinion of the Chief Justice for the Court, subject only to the following comments, and concur in all of its determinations of the issues raised by the parties and amici. With respect to “Legislative Delegation of Authority”, I regard the issue as fully laid to rest, prospectively, by L. 1975, c. 95. This statute is quoted in the Court’s opinion, and it expressly confers power on each correctional and penal institution, subject to guidelines set down by the Director, to adopt regulations governing the rights, privileges, duties and obligations of inmates, including matters of sanctions for violation of rules and procedure for imposition thereof. Taken together with the universally conceded inherent power of the keeper of a correctional or penal *564 institution to enforce reasonable rules and regulations with regard to the inmate population thereof, 72 C. J. S. Prisons § 18, p. 872, there can remain no longer any colorable question as to adequacy of legislative standards for the guidance of the Department in respect of these matters. As to the adequacy of the standards prior to the adoption of the 1975 act, I agree with the opinion of the Court. As to “Public Involvement”, I agree with the Court that the argument that Eirst Amendment values require the advance notification to the public of proposals for adoption or amendment of prison rules and regulations is without merit. Eurther, as the Court points out, such proposed rules are now published in the New Jersey Register in advance of promulgation (notwithstanding exemption from the Administrative Procedure Act), and the public thus has an opportunity for input on such rules before adoption. I would rest with these observations. I cannot, with all deference, join in the implication of the opinion that there may be harm to the correctional system in public debate over proposed rules. Such debate would not, in my view, at all compromise authority in the governance of the institutions. Over the long run, it is bound to be salutary, as the court itself implies elsewhere in the opinion. Legislative awareness of these considerations seems implicit in Section 13 of the Department of the Public Advocate Act (L. 1974, c 27), which establishes an Office of Inmate Advocacy, and authorizes it, among other things, to “act as representatives of inmates with any principal department or other instrumentality of State, county or local government.” Conford, P. J. A. D., concurring in the result. For affirmance as modified — Chief Justice Hughes, Justices Mountain and Sullivan and Judge Conford — 4. Concurring in part and dissenting in part — Justice Pashman — 1. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9651487. Public record. Not legal advice.