Kravitz v. Leis

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · May 7, 2020 · No. 19-1077

Summary

In this unpublished Second Circuit summary order, the court affirmed summary judgment for a prison lieutenant in a pro se § 1983 action alleging denial of access to Jewish prayer items (tallit and tefillin) in violation of the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant's personal involvement in any constitutional deprivation, as the record showed the grievance was granted, and the plaintiff could not amend his complaint through summary judgment submissions by raising a new claim about the defendant's failure to remedy a facility complaint. The court also found that claims against unnamed employees were abandoned for failure to brief them on appeal.

Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Writing for the Court
John M. Walker, Jr.; Rosemary S. Pooler; Gerard E. Lynch
Jurisdiction
Federal
Decision date
May 7, 2020
Docket number
19-1077
Procedural posture
Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York (McAvoy, J.) granting summary judgment.
Standard of review
We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all inferences against the moving party. Summary judgment is proper only when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Precedential value
unpublished
Parties
Jay S. Kravitz v. Kenneth Leis, John and Jane Does
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

section 1983first amendmentsummary judgmentappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

Civil RightsAppellate Practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Kravitz abandoned claims against unnamed employees by failing to raise them on appeal.
  2. Whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to Lieutenant Leis on the ground that Kravitz failed to establish Leis's personal involvement in the alleged constitutional violation.
  3. Whether the district court erred by declining to consider Kravitz's claim that Leis failed to remedy the issue after receiving a facility complaint, raised for the first time in objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

Holdings

  1. Kravitz abandoned any claims related to the unnamed employees by failing to raise the issue in his brief on appeal.
  2. Summary judgment was proper because Kravitz failed to produce evidence that Leis was personally involved in the alleged violation; the documentary record showed that the superintendent granted Kravitz's request.
  3. The district court did not err because Kravitz raised this claim for the first time in his objections to the magistrate judge's report, and parties may not amend their complaints through summary judgment submissions.

Key quotations

Summary judgment is proper only when, construing the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant, 'there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.'
[I]n this Circuit personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.

Factual background

Kravitz, an inmate at Greene County Jail, requested access to his tefillin and tallit for prayer. The grievance coordinator recommended granting the request, and the superintendent agreed, allowing him to have the items in his cell for prayer on May 20. Kravitz alleged that Lieutenant Leis overrode the coordinator's recommendation and denied his grievance at the behest of the superintendent, but the documentary record showed the superintendent granted the request.

Procedural history

Kravitz sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that prison officials violated his First Amendment free exercise rights by denying access to his prayer items (tallit and tefillin). The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. Kravitz appeals.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…