Free Letter - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:06-cv-00694—GI\/IS Document 160 Filed 08/18/2008 Page 1 of 3
Amir Fatir #137010
1181 Paddock Road `
Smyrna, DE 19977
August 4, 2008
lWWWF` i i. E. D `
The Honorable Gregory M. Sleet { ;-·——~~—~-—-—·~~-··]
Chief Judge E I y Q
U.S. District Court i AUG l 8 2008
844 King Street i {
Wilmington, DE 19801
RE: Boyer, et al. v. Taylor, et al., C.A. N0. 06-694-GMS ij AMWjwwmmpwwwwNi A
Dear Chief Judge Sleet:
I have received a copy of Erika Tross’ July 28, 2008 letter to the court regarding
my request that you enquire into the prison’s refusal to grant my wife and me a three hour
special visit.
Ms. Tross’ letter stated that "Inmates who have visitors who ‘reside more than
one hundred miles from the institution’ may request a special visit. The special visit is 90
minutes long."
Contrary to Ms. Tross’ statement and Major James Scarborough’s letter
(addressed to but never received by my wife), a special visit is and has long been for
three hours. I have personally had several three hour special visits as have numerous
other prisoners.
I urge this court to obtain a complete copy of Administrative Regulations 1135
and the Department of Correction’s Rules for the Treatment of Inmates in the Delaware
Correctional Institutions.
These documents govem all aspects of prisoners’ living conditions and policies
such as visiting throughout the state.
The current regime at the James Vauglm Correctional Center has arrogated to
itself powers to make instant policies at the whim of whichever person is making it. But
no one is authorized to make policies at all and whatever operating procedures are
enacted have to be in accord with Bureau Policy and Departmental Policy as promulgated
by the Administrative Regulations.
It is highly possible that Major Scarborough doesn’t even know that people
coming from beyond 100 miles are entitled to a three hour special visit. The letter from
Ms. Tross gives the impression that three hour special visits are a figment of my

Case 1 :06-cv-00694—GI\/IS Document 160 Filed 08/18/2008 Page 2 of 3
imagination when they have been very real for many decades. Even if the present regime
had the authority to unilaterally change policy,1 it would still have to post the new policy
for a minimum of thirty days before it could become actual policy so that prisoners would
have the opportunity to obj ect and challenge the proposed new policy. Nothing along
those lines occurred in the case of the alleged change from three hour special visits to 90
minute special visits.
Regarding the supposed 90 minute special visit, the visits I received from my wife
were posted in the building and were clearly classified as "REGULAR" in the column
which indicates the type of visit.
My visits were not special visits. They were the same regular back-to-back 45
minute visits that anyone and everyone gets no matter how close to the prison they’ve
traveled.
My visits might be considered "special" (albeit truncated) if, in addition to the 90
minute visit I was permitted to use the 90 minutes of visiting time to which every
prisoner is entitled.
Some years ago, in an effort to keep prisoners in the dark as to our actual rights,
the Rules for the Treatment of Inmates were removed from the prison law library at
D.C.C. But this important document is well known and is referred to in case law fiom
this court. For example, Anderson v. Redman, 429 F.Supp. ll05 stated, "it is not
surprising that following the trial, defendants ultimately conceded "that the housing of
pre-trial detentioners in other than single cells is done in violation of the Rules for the
Treatment of Inmates in the Delaware Correctional Institutions and ll Del. C. §
6526(b)."
Since my wife will be returning to England on August l0, 2008, it appears
unlikely that we will get the special visits we’re entitled to receive. However, we are
grateful that this court was kind enough to take time out of its busy schedule to enquire
into a matter that must be infmitesimally minute compared to the monumental judgments
this court must render.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
érwe e~·rt/”
Amir Fatir
cc: Erika Y. Tross
I The Warden has the power, tmder emergency conditions, to temporarily alter or suspend policies and
enact emergency policies until a crisis situation has subsided. He or she does not, however, have the
authority to create or suspend policies from the Departmental or Bureau level ad inhnitum.
2

Case1:06—cv-00694—GIV|S D0cument160 Filed 08/18/2008 Page30f3
p> W
c: g gif \/ -
E E0 V"
O1
m 8 I
n- W ’(‘
S Q /’
5 —1
UE ,
F
8
{..5- E
I
% g
I":. ) fx 6 /` m
tgt: { Ov , O Q
s:·.* .· 1 V;
{.,4. .· u
Ll:} 2 'L LV?) X
y 0/ Q _ 2* 0
ig 9 X O/' .
“ C/P 2/ (9
::1: · / ,__
U ( z¤
W U P5
O em
::: ···~ ,4 =
EEZ, {D H? Hifi
4/ `*=