Prosha v. Robinson
Decision Date | 02 November 2018 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 3:16CV163 |
Parties | ERIC L. PROSHA, Plaintiff, v. DAVID ROBINSON, et al., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia |
Eric L. Prosha, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Prosha's Particularized Complaint ("Complaint," ECF No. 21).1 The Court previously dismissed a number of Prosha's claims.2 Only the following claims against Defendant Robinson remain before the Court:
Prosha v. Robinson, No. 3:16CV163, 2018 WL 564855, at *7 (E.D. Va. Jan. 25, 2018). The Court also dismissed Prosha's demand for monetary damages in conjunction with Claim Four. Id.
Defendant Robinson has moved for summary judgment and provided Prosha with Roseboro6 Notice. (ECF Nos. 57, 59.) Prosha has responded. (ECF No. 64.) For the reasons that follow, the Motion for Summary Judgment will be GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court WILL GRANT the Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Claims One and Two and WILL DENY the Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to Claim Four.
Summary judgment must be rendered "if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The party seeking summary judgment bears the responsibility of informing the Court of the basis for the motion and identifying the parts of the record which demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). "[W]here the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue, a summary judgment motion may properly be made in reliance solely on the pleadings,depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file." Id. at 324 (internal quotation marks omitted). When the motion is properly supported, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings and, by citing affidavits or "'depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,' designate 'specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" Id. (quoting former Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), (e) (1986)). In reviewing a summary judgment motion, the Court "must draw all justifiable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party." United States v. Carolina Transformer Co., 978 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir. 1992) (citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986)). However, a mere "scintilla of evidence" will not preclude summary judgment. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 251 ). "[T]here is a preliminary question for the judge, not whether there is literally no evidence, but whether there is any upon which a jury could properly proceed to find a verdict for the party . . . upon whom the onus of proof is imposed." Id. (quoting Munson, 81 U.S. at 448).
In support of his Motion for Summary Judgment, Defendant Robinson has submitted: the affidavit of A. Anderson, the Senior Director of Food Service Operations at GCC (ECF No. 58-1, at 1-3); the affidavit of S. Davis-Bryan, the manager of the VDOC correspondence unit (ECF No. 58-2); his own affidavit (ECF No. 58-3); the affidavit of Tameca Woodley, the Chief of Housing and Programs at GCC (ECF No. 58-4); and a variety of institutional records (see, e.g., ECF No. 58-1, at 4-11).7 Prosha's Complaint is sworn to under penalty of perjury. (Compl. 8.) Additionally, the record contains a number of grievances and complaints submitted by other inmates who initially sought to bring the action jointly with Prosha.
In light of the foregoing submissions and principles, the following facts are established for purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment.
(Compl. ¶ 12.) During April of 2015, Prosha was housed in GCC. "[T]he House of Yahweh group had previously arranged with Chaplain Wiggins to receive the proper meals for the Passover of the Unleavened Bread," which was to begin at lunch on April 3, 2015 and continue through the evening meal on April 11, 2015. (Id. ¶ 13; ECF No. 58-4 ¶ 7.)
On January 26, 2015, Defendant Robinson issued a memorandum to the VDOC Wardens and Superintendents regarding the procedures for the observance of the 2015 Passover. (ECF No. 58-4 ¶ 7.) "The memorandum defined a Passover Meal as a meal from the Common Fare menu which is free of leavened food items, legumes, and grains." (Id. ¶ 8.) The memorandum instructed that for Passover meals, matzah would be substituted for bread for the duration of Passover. (Id. ¶ 7.) The Passover Meals meet basic nutritional needs. (Id. ¶ 8.)8
(Id. ¶ 5.)
On April 2, 2015, Prosha received his matzah bread distribution for Passover from Chaplain Wall.9 (ECF No. 58-4, at 23.) According to Prosha, on April 3, 2015, when he went to obtain his meal, the tray contained egg noodles, which he could not eat because they contained yeast. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Prosha complained to the kitchen supervisor, who informed Prosha that this was the only food they had to give him. (Id.) Prosha contends that he was unable to eat the meal because of the requirements of his religion. (Id.)10
(Compl. ¶ 19.)11
Other documents in the record support Prosha's assertion that Kosher meals were not available during the 2015 Passover. Specifically, on April 3, 2015, inmate Sirleaf submitted multiple emergency grievances wherein he complained that he would not eat a non-Kosher meal during Passover. (ECF No. 2-7, at 11-13.) Three different correctional officer responded that either "Per Chaplain Wall, NO KOSHER meal during normal meals," (id. at 11-12), or "there is no special meal," id. at 13.12 Four other inmates submitted similar emergency grievances and received similar responses. (Id. at 15-18.)
VDOC records reflect that, between February and May of 2015, Prosha regularly purchased and presumably consumed a host of items that were not Kosher.13 For example in February of 2015, Prosha purchased Texas Beef Ramen and Chili Ramen. (ECF No. 58-4, at26.) In March of 2015, Prosha purchased a variety of Ramen products, chili with beans, and summer sausage. (Id. at 27.) On April 2, 2015, just before Passover, Prosha purchased the following non-Kosher items: two types of Ramen, Cool Ranch Doritos, Duplex Cream Cookies, and BBQ corn chips. (Id. at 28.) On that same day, Prosha also purchased the following Kosher items: Colombian Coffee, Zippy Monster Iced Honey Bun, Zippy Peanut Butter Crème Cookies, an iced cinnamon roll, and a box of Saltine crackers. (Id.)
According to Prosha, on April 6, 2015, he sent a letter to Defendant Robinson explaining that meals served during Passover were deficient. (Compl. ¶ 21.) Prosha did not receive a response to that letter. (Id.)
"The Offender Correspondence Unit is responsible for tracking and responding to offender correspondence addressed to the Virginia Department of Corrections (VDOC)...
To continue reading
Request your trial