Free Opening Brief in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:05-cv-OOOCj§;@pI]§[yN[qcE;grgip;;gt[£}°._·§;5)ISTl1i{1;q·Q§3;2f{i§i§§0O7 Page 1 of 3
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
JAMAH K. GROSVEN OR, )
Plaintiff, g
) C.A.No. 05-033-GMS
it- )
)
THOMAS CARROLL, etal., )
Defendants. g
AFFIDAVIT OF JAYME JACKSON
I, Jayme Jackson having been duly sworn by law, do hereby depose and state as
follows:
1. I am employed by the State of Delaware Department of Correction
("DOC") at the Delaware Correctional Center ("DCC") Smyrna, Delaware as
Chairperson of the Institutional Based Classification Committee. ("IBCC"). I have been
employed by the DOC since May 1, 1990 and have held my present position since
December, 2002.
2. I have read the plaintiffs complaint and dispute the allegations therein.
3. When an inmate receives a Level V sentence, an initial classification is
completed to determine the inmate’s security housing, treatment and programming
placement. The Level V imnate’s next review date is based on the length of his sentence.
4. A Level IV sentenced inmate is also reviewed for appropriate security
housing although he is not classified.
5. Lt. Ricky Porter and I perform the initial classifications at the DCC. The
Multi-Disciplinary Team ("MDT") is composed of the counselor assigned to the building,

Q@&E¤LiQ?sEH·Q9I9elt?mligVb$i isJlHBlH€&%¤l@t§i.i§g tmh*'avl1Q§l9?’?i9(9tZaS §ésaaa'¥&*i§t.
Porter.
6. On May 31, 2004, the plaintiff was written up in an Incident Report for
Assault, Disorderly and Threatening Behavior, Inciting a Riot, Demonstration (strike)
and Failure to Obey an Order. The incident was extremely serious in nature. The Incident
Report states that the plaintiff was directly involved with several other inmates of
attempting to interfere with the Correctional Staff while acting in accordance with their
duties. The plaintiff and several other inmates surrounded the Correctional Staff blocking
all exits and obstructing their vision contact while yelling, "F_ _ _ you guys, we are not
going anywhere."
7. The plaintiff and the other inmates involved were immediately placed
back under control by security and transferred to isolation. The MDT completed an
interviewfclassilication with the plaintiff on June 1, 2004. The MDT recommended an
override to Maximum Security citing the seriousness of the incident and the pending
investigation. Per Bureau Policy a request for an override was required as his Risk
Assessment Score ("RAS") was 14. A RAS score of 14 dictates Medium Security
Housing as noted in the Classification Policy. The override/classification was approved
by the IBCC which also noted the seriousness of the incident.
S. On October 18, 2004, plaintiff's classification was reviewed where he
received a RAS of 18 requiring a Maximum Security Classification. On January 28,
2005, the plaintiff’ s classification was again reviewed with a request for an override to
continue Maximum Security. The counselor claimed that the plaintiff "was still

Case 1:05-cv-OOO33—Gl\/IS [iocument 28-5 Filed O3/O2/2007 Page 3 of 3
I
exhibiting negative behavior." LP1aintiff"s RAS at this classiiication was I6 which
requires a Medium Security Clas iiication.
9. On July 19, 2005} the plaintiff was reviewed with a. recommendation for
Medium High Security rescindmg Maximum Security. The counselor noted that the
plaintiff had not been written p for almost a. year and recommended e How down
process. An override was not t- _uired at this classification. The plaintiff has continued to
process through the classificatinin procedure. Based on thc seriousness of tl1e incident
followed by the appropriate pjessmcatiou the plaintiff` s classification to Maximum
Security was completed within c Policy and Procedure of the Bureau of Prisons.
10. I have made thesekstatements based upon my personal knowledge,
specialized tra.ini11g and experien} e as an employee of` the DOC .
l
,3. ru a E
SWORN AND SUBS ED before me this Q day of March. 2007
I Notary