Free Stipulation - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01378-GMS Document 40-2 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 1 of 3
HN THE IUNIITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DHSTRIICT OE DELAWARE
SAAD M. SOLIMAN, )
)
Plaintiff )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1378 (GMS)
)
STANLEY TAYLOR; PAUL HOWARD; )
THOMAS CARROLL; LAWRENCE ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
McGUIGAN; JAMES LUPINETTI; DAVID E. )
PIERCE, Jr.; JOSEPH BRICHARDSON; )
RONALD HO STERMAN; CERTAIN )
UNKNOWN INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEES OF )
THE DELAWARE DEPARTMENT )
OF CORRECTION; and STATE OF )
DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF )
CORRECTION, )
)
Defendants. )
AEEIDAVIT OE SAAD SOLIMAN
I, Saad M. Soliman, being duly sworn according to law, hereby depose and say as
follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned matter.
2. This Affidavit is intended to clarify assertions that were contained in my Affidavit
dated February 7, 2005.
3. Due to my incarceration and the time limitations with respect to filing my Answering
Brief on Defendants Motions to Dismiss/Summary Judgment communication with my attorneys
regarding my review of these documents was difficult. With respect to the February 7, 2005
Affidavit, my attorneys were required to prepare the Affidavit prior to their visit with me on that
date. I was given very little time to review the Affidavit and as a result could not effectively
scrutinize the averments made therein. Upon reflection it contained language that indicated that I
filed grievances while housed in "The Ho1e." This was not the case.
4. While I was housed in “‘The Hole", I was not permitted by DCC staff to file any
grievances. I was instructed that I would have to wait until I was released from "The Hole” and
I

I Case 1:04-cv-01378—G|\/IS Document 40-2 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 2 of 3
indeed, did have to wait until I was released from "The Hole" before I was given access to a pen
and any grievance forms.
5. Once released from "The Hole” I was housed in the SHU, maximum security.
During this time, I filed numerous grievances. The only responses that I received to these
grievances were in response to one or two that raised the issue of my not receiving my mail.
6. While housed in the SHU, I found that the grievance procedure for inmates at that
security level is flawed in that inmates are not permitted to personally place their grievances in
the locked grievance boxes. As a result, inmates must give their grievance forms to the
corrections ofticer on duty and trust that the corrections officer drops the grievance into the
secured grievance box. While housed in the SHU, I filed a grievance over this flaw in the
system, but received no response.
7. There is no posted procedure anywhere in the prison that instructs inmates on how
to properly utilize DCC’s grievance process. I was required to learn how to utilize the process
through explanations given by other inmates. Institutional rules are to be posted in an area where
every inmate is to have reasonable access.
8. Every grievance that I have filed since instituting this lawsuit indicated that it was
to be carbon copied to my attorneys. I was informed that they only manner in which they
received copies of my grievances was through copies that I supplied them.
9. On February 3, 2005, nearly nine months after the incident with the "l\/luslim Oil,"
I was re-charged with the crimes arising from that incident. I was already absolved of those
alleged crimes. I understand that under institutional rules, charges must be addressed within 90
days ofthe incident. The following is my account ofthe events that took place that day.
‘ I0. While I was being prppessed on the charges, Defendant Richardson instructed
Major Holman and Captain McCratx!er to remove all photos, paperwork and other materials out of
my cell. Included in the items removed was legal material, including correspondence to and from
my attorneys, as well as myjournal. My journal included entries that accounted for the
grievances that I tiled while incarcerated in the SI—IU.
I I. The remainder of my property was also taken from me. As of February 18, 2005,
I have yet to have my property returned.
12. There is an institutional policy that when an inmate is moved from MHU to SHU,
he must receive his property within 72 hours.
13. According to policy, everything that is allowed in the MHU is allowed in the SHU
except toenail clippers and razors.
2

Case 1:04-cv-01378—Gl\/IS Document 40-2 Filed 09/26/2005 Page 3 of 3
14. During the course ofthe events that took place on February 3, 2005, Defendant
Richardson stated to me, “pretty soon your little tirade for attention will be over too, you’ll see
then whose gonna help ya?’”
l5. I understood this comment, in conjunction with the timing of this event vis-a-vis
the filing of my Answering Brief to mean that Defendant Richardson orchestrated the events of
February 3, 2005 and confiscated my legal materials and journal in an effort to frustrate the filing
of my Answering Brief.
(1,.
16. Corrections Officer Wells informed me that his superior Captain l\/1cCralifer· was
instructed by Defendant Richardson to confiscate my materials and write me up for having a
religious necklace and a ring. i was written up for possessing these items; both of which are
permitted items at DCC.
17. l believe that Defendant Richardson made this instruction to Captain McCragv[hr in
order to take further retaliatoiy actions against me and to place me back into maximum security,
SHU, ./‘""i`l _
/ O
{ 7;/ j
u M. ol1m.an\ /
SWORN TO ND SUBSCRIBED before l
this .,· _u _, ·. ary, 2005
3