Whether Petitioner presented an underlying First Amendment Constitutional violation

Questions Presented Whether Petitioner presented an underlying First Amendment Constitutional violation in complaining of Respondents’ depriving him of the use of Tefillin while incarcerated in Respondents’ facility, particularly in light of the facility having failed to present any regulation or policy which would have . prevented Petitioner access to the Tefillin and the facility’s own grievance procedure belatedly affirming the Petitioner's right to use the tefillin? , Whether the lower court was in error for not finding that Respondent Lieutenant Leis had a personal involvement in the violation of Petitioner’s First Amendment right to practice his faith by repeatedly communicating with Petitioner : regarding his access to and use of his Tefillin, by repeatedly and directly refusing Petitioner access to his Tefillin after the Petitioner directly asked Respondent for the use of this prayer object including after the Grievance Coordinator at the facility decided that Petitioner should have the use of his Tefillin, and the Respondent personally investigated whether the Petitioner should have the use of the Tefillin? The answer to both of these questions should be in the affirmative. Parties Petitioner, pro se: Jay S. Kravitz RespondentKENNETH LEIS, GREENE COUNTY CORRECTIONS LIEUTENANT List of Proceedings Trial Court Judgment and Decision granting Summary Judgment to Respondent: Kravitz v. Leis, 9:17-cv-0600 (TJM/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2019) Appellate Court Judgment and Decision affirming the Trial Court— _ ' Kravitz v. Leis, 19-1077 (2d Cir. May 7, 2020) Docket #19-1077 Citations of the official and unofficial reports of the opinions and orders entered in the case Kravitz v. Leis, 9:17-cv-0600 (TJM/TWD) (N.D.N.Y. Mar. 25, 2019) Kravitz v. Leis, 19-1077 (2d Cir. May 7, 2020) Docket #19-1077 Basis for Jurisdiction The Judgment sought to be reviewed was entered on May 7, 2020. : The statutory provision which confers on this Court jurisdiction to review on a writ of certiorari the Judgment is 28 U.S. Code § 1254. The constitutional provisions, treaties, statutes, : ; ordinances, and regulations involved in this case Constitutional Provisions Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Amendment XIV‘ Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Statutes 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. Rules : Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) . Rule 56. Summary Judgment (a) Motion for Summary Judgment or Partial Summary Judgment. A party ma