We first conclude that Khan's statement is an improper evidentiary submission. Khan's statement is not notarized and is therefore not an affidavit. An affidavit is any voluntary ex parte statement reduced to writing and sworn to or affirmed before a person legally authorized to administer an oath or affirmation. It is essential to the validity of an affidavit that it be sworn to or affirmed before an officer authorized to administer oaths or affirmations. In addition, it appears that the statement is made on information and belief.
Affidavits made upon information and belief are improper evidentiary submissions.
More significantly, the exhibits that are attached to the affidavit do not establish that Khan filed inmate complaints directly corresponding to the particular conduct reports and procedural allegations at issue here, or that those inmate complaints were not accepted because Khan used his Muslim name. Exhibit One is an inmate complaint with subsequent ICRS appeal documents appealing a temporary lockup complaint and challenging the constitutionality of Wis. Admin. Exhibit Three is an inmate complaint in which Khan appears to be challenging his placement in segregation for using his Muslim name. Again, this complaint does not raise the procedural challenges Khan submitted to the warden on his four conduct reports. In addition, the date of incident or denial of request identified on this complaint does not correspond to the dates of any of the incidents or to the warden's denials in the conduct reports at issue.