ORDER

CARLA BALDWIN, Magistrate Judge.

This action is a pro se civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by a state prisoner. Plaintiff paid the full filing fee in this matter. (ECF No. 1.) The Court entered a screening order on October 21, 2019. (ECF No. 5.) The screening order imposed a 90-day stay and the Court entered a subsequent order in which the parties were assigned to mediation by a court-appointed mediator. (ECF Nos. 5, 10.) The Office of the Attorney General has filed a status report indicating that settlement has not been reached and informing the Court of its intent to proceed with this action. (ECF No. 15.)

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall electronically SERVE a copy of this order and a copy of Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 6) on the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, by adding the Attorney General of the State of Nevada to the docket sheet. This does not indicate acceptance of service.

2. Service must be perfected within ninety (90) days from the date of this order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

3. Subject to the findings of the screening order (ECF No. 5), within twenty-one (21) days of the date of entry of this order, the Attorney General's Office shall file a notice advising the Court and Plaintiff of: (a) the names of the defendants for whom it accepts service; (b) the names of the defendants for whom it does not accept service, and (c) the names of the defendants for whom it is filing the last-known-address information under seal. As to any of the named defendants for whom the Attorney General's Office cannot accept service, the Office shall file, under seal, but shall not serve the inmate Plaintiff the last known address(es) of those defendant(s) for whom it has such information. If the last known address of the defendant(s) is a post office box, the Attorney General's Office shall attempt to obtain and provide the last known physical address(es).

4. If service cannot be accepted for any of the named defendant(s), Plaintiff shall file a motion identifying the unserved defendant(s), requesting issuance of a summons, and specifying a full name and address for the defendant(s). For the defendant(s) as to which the Attorney General has not provided last-known-address information, Plaintiff shall provide the full name and address for the defendant(s).

5. If the Attorney General accepts service of process for any named defendant(s), such defendant(s) shall file and serve an answer or other response to the complaint (ECF No. 6) within sixty (60) days from the date of this order.

6. Henceforth, Plaintiff shall serve upon defendant(s) or, if an appearance has been entered by counsel, upon their attorney(s), a copy of every pleading, motion or other document submitted for consideration by the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original document submitted for filing a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the document was mailed or electronically filed to the defendants or counsel for the defendants. If counsel has entered a notice of appearance, Plaintiff shall direct service to the individual attorney named in the notice of appearance, at the physical or electronic address stated therein. The Court may disregard any document received by a district judge or magistrate judge which has not been filed with the Clerk of the Court, and any document received by a district judge, magistrate judge, or the Clerk of the Court which fails to include a certificate showing proper service.

7. This case is no longer stayed.

EXHIBIT 1

EXHIBIT 2

COUNT I

The following civil rights have been violated:

Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

_______________________________ RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

___________________________ Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII)

_______________________ Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12101, et seq.)1

_________________________________ Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.)2

Supporting Facts:

As a continuing wrong for the past two (2) years and beyond, as undersigned was a prisoner in the Nevada Department of Corrections (hereinafter "NDOC"), he was unable to consume religious dietary meals in a kosher area during mealtimes or high holy days (which is essential to core religious practices as an Orthodox Jewish person). Plaintiff is, and always has been, an ethnically and religiously Orthodox Jew who requires a Kosher diet3.

The standard of review in Nevada has been set forth in Paliotta v. State (In re in Relation to the Nev. Dep't of Corr.), 133 Nev. Ad. Op. 58, at 6-10 (Nev. Sep. 14, 2017).

On numerous occasions over the past several years and beyond, Plaintiff (and similarly situated Orthodox Jewish inmates) have made it known to officials at the various institutions that they need to consume kosher food in an area that would not contaminate the foodstuff (defeating their alleged kosher quality) as is allowed in other prison environments. The undersigned and other Plaintiffs were frequently not allowed to take even sealed foods out from the dining halls (and even received NOC's for attempting4) and were forced to consume contaminated foods or go without eating as a routine condition of confinement in the NDOC.

The dining hall is not Kosher. Religious adherents should be allowed to take their food home as they do for lunch and holidays (not to mention that package food, canteen food, diets such as 2800 calorie also do). At Northern Nevada Correctional Center ("NNCC"), inmates can take out whatever food they can put in their lunchbox. At High Desert State Prison ("HDSP"), Unit 9, inmates can choose to eat on the central tier or in their cell. "As we noted in Warsoldier, `we have found comparisons between institutions analytically useful when considering whether the government is employing the least restrictive means. Indeed, the failure of a defendant to explain why another institution with the same compelling interests was able to accommodate the same religious practices may constitute a failure to establish that the defendant was using the least restrictive means.'" Shakur v. Schriro, 514 F.3d 878, 891 (2008) (quoting Warsoldier v. Woodford, 418 F.3d 989, 1000 (9th Cir.2005)); see also Spratt v. R.I. Dep't of Corr., 482 F.3d 33, 42 (1st Cir. 2007) (same). Shakur himself required halal meats, but Orthodox Christians require kosher food too. Johnson v. Nev. ex rel. Bd. of Prison Comm'rs, No. 3:11-cv-00487-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 26, 2013). As delineated in the following Count, this is why a dual system in needed.

The units are based on a level system. Jews, then, in the lower levels are being disciplined by being forced to eat in treif environs.

Also, bleach does not kasher a kitchen, only fire. This is from the Torah. Bamidbar 31:21= 23. Even if the microwaves are cleaned, they're not properly koshered. Yet, because the CFP is mostly raw foodstuffs and overall cold5, any semblance of kosher is destroyed when a Jew using the gentile microwave. Per In re Garcia, 136 Cal.Rptr.3d 298, 202 Cal.App.4th 892, 899 (Cal. Ct. App. 3rd Dist. 2012), the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") has at most facilities "a designated microwave and separate food preparation area for kosher food."

Recently, the Idaho Department of Corrections switched over to a No-Touch diet:

Bartlett v. Atencio, 1:17-cv-00191-CWD (D ID, Aug. 11, 2017), Doc. 32-1, s. v. PARTIAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, pp.2-3 (filed 08/11/17).

COUNT II

The following civil rights have been violated:

___ Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

_______________________________ RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

________________________ Contract Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

Over the past two (2) years and beyond, the defendants of the NDOC have engaged in the custom, practice, and policy of justifying a reduction in the quality, quantity, and variety of Kosher foods for Orthodox Jewish prisoners by elimination of any previous rational "screening process" (i.e., instead soliciting non-Jews and non-religious inmate "participants" to vastly inflate the number of prisoners with Kosher needs) to justify and create a less costly, generalized bland diet.

The results of this was/has been, for years, an elimination of most sealed — prepared outside of the prison — Kosher meals and a harsh resort to often bland, uncooked, or contaminated foods and foods that are not appropriate for Sabbath meals, or for Jewish holiday meals and festive meals (as is discussed in Counts VI and VIII infra). This is in reckless regard to the Plaintiffs' needs.

Typically, however, Kosher dietary programs are for true, actual Orthodox Jewish prisoners, while "Common Fare" ("CFP") is for the rest of the religious adherents because there is a set of significant needs for the far smaller number of actual Orthodox Jewish prisoners than for the others that the CFP simply cannot provide.

But there is no dual CFP and Kosher diet program as is done in the Arizona DOC program. See Department Order 912, Attachment D (noting Religious and Kosher diets); see also Shakur, id. at 881. In Rowe v. Lemon, 976 N.E.2d 129, 135-37 (Ind. App. 2012), the court reversed summary judgment and noted that the vegan diet which would satisfy the Identity Christian's beliefs but the vegan diet was not certified kosher. And in Washington, messianic jews ("MJ") are entitled to a religious diet. But, as their Handbook of Religious Beliefs and Practices (rev.2d ed. 2004) recognizes:

Here, however, the NDOC propounds that the CFP is kosher style and, thusly, would satisfy MJ groups6 and the rest of the devotees of religions other than Judaism. In Shoemaker v. Williams, No. CV 10-0826-JO, 2013 WL 528306, at *2 (D.Or. Feb. 11, 2013), "[Plaintiff] conceded that the vegetarian and fish meals[7] provided by [the prison] are halal and comply with the dietary restrictions of his religion."

By using the interview process instituted by Jackie Crawford if not earlier, the chaplain can Differentiate which inmates require CFP or Kosher. Howbeit failing to properly screen religious Dietary congregants, Defendants allow for all religious diets to be reduced to their idea of a "Common Fare" diet. As such, Defendants have unlawfully engaged in patterns of impermissible Entanglement to an "excessive degree." Accord Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-12 (1971); See also Ran-Dav's County Kosher, Inc. v. State, 129 N.J. 141, 150-59, 608 A.2d 1353, 1361-69 (1992), cert. den., 507 U.S. 952 (1993), cited in Barghout v. Bureau, Kosher Meat Food Control, 66 F.3d 1337, 1341-46 (4th Cir. 1995).

Moreover, the prison authorities are capable of distinguishing between those who have legitimate and sincere8 need for kosher food and charlatans who claim to be religious. E.g., Jackson v. Monn, 196 F.3d 316 (2d Cir. 1999); Therioult v. Silber, 453 F.Supp. 254 (W.D. Tex. 1978) ("a masquerade designed to obtain First Amendment protection"), app. dis., 579 F.2d 302 (5th Cir. 1978). Denying kosher food to legitimate believers because scoundrels take advantage of that right meets the proverbial description of discarding the baby with the bath-water.

As fantastic as it sounds, one inmate actually sued because he did not want to be fed rabbinic Kosher food. Scatena v. Rowland, 47 Conn.Sup. 251 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2000). Again, by being the "`arbiters-of-orthodoxy concerning what Buddhist[s] require[,]'" Stavenjord v. Schmidt, 344 P.3d 826, 828 (Alaska 2015), or Judaism in this case, the NDOC is Entangling themselves in everyone's religion.

And in Carter v. Fleming, No. 17-6461 (4th Cir., Jan. 8th, 2018), the 4th Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants in an inmate's suit claiming that the Common Fare menu does not comply with Nation of Islam dietary restrictions because it includes fried foods and challenging his suspension from the Common Fare diet.

COUNT III

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII) Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if fully set forth herein, and further allege that for over the past two (2) years in the NDOC, the undersigned and other material witnesses have seen numerous instances of evidence that the so called "Common Fare" meals and preparation areas are not Kosher (despite inspections by a Rabbi Yisroel Rosskamm who may or may not have actually approved the meals or the preparations as Kosher or Kosher for Passover).

Defendants and the NDOC's custom, practice, and policy on pushing "Common Fare" as acceptable as Kosher for virtually all Jewish dietary needs is belied by the fact that there are rodent and insect infestations in these prep areas (which are often filthy otherwise), and on utensils, plates, and pans in such facilities and in the foods prepared out of them as witnessed by Plaintiffs and others who have gotten sickened by such foods.

The clam shells/styros have occasionally schmutz in them (bugs9, hair, liquids [see Vayikra 11:38]) and sometimes the eggs too. Inmates have observed mice in the NNCC CFP kitchen10). Mr. Wilson instituted an open ½ clam shell, double wrapped, at HDSP but they are commonly compromised or with spoiled eggs or other food. There's no process to replace treif food.

Additionally, the frequently unwashed and/or raw vegetables served as part of the CFP meals are difficult to digest and cause pain and gastrointestinal distress and discomfort. Accord Shakur, cited, inter alia, in Kitchen, id. at) 15. One court at least found that this was sufficient to state a claim. Brames v. Hodge, No. 14-cv-00410-MJR-SCW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61591 (S.D. Ill. May 5th, 2014) ("Plaintiff, however, complains that the kosher diet is comprised of 40% beans and Plaintiff contends that he cannot eat beans `because the beans make gas build up around Plaintiff [sic] heart to the point that Plaintiff is in agony."). The CFP must provide "a diet sufficient to sustain the prisoner in good health without violating the Jewish dietary laws[.]" Kahane v. Carlson, 527 F.2d 492, 496 (2d Cir. 1975)11.

In turn, Plaintiffs are/were compelled to either consume foods that were not Kosher by contamination, and/or that would cause him misery and pain in digesting such, or even sickness, or go without almost eating at all. Complaints on numerous occasions to NDOC staff or contractors about these issues have failed to be resolved.

"Every prisoner shall be provided by the prison administration at the usual hours with food of nutritional value adequate for health and strength, of wholesome quality and well prepared and served." Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 22, § (1).

COUNT IV

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

Petition Government For Redress Of Grievances (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Procedural Due Process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

The NDOC and its staff, for years now, have employed a Denver, Colorado, based organization to certify its CFP foods and prep areas as "Kosher" per Orthodox Jewish standards (viz., Scroll K, Vaad HaKashrus, etc.).

However, based on the personal knowledge of the undersigned and Plaintiffs and other material witnesses throughout the NDOC, it is actually unlikely the Defendants or NDOC have passed true kashrut certifications and in fact they have not but the procedures and contact do not duly inform Plaintiffs if the kitchen prep area and foods are kosher.

There's no assurance that the Scroll-K procedures are being followed, to wit:

Kosher Certification in Correctional Facilities

The Scroll K, a nationally recognized kosher certification agency, provides kosher certification for kosher meals prepared in correctional facilities. The certification is done by constantly monitoring the kosher kitchen area by video cameras as well as on-site inspections.

The Scroll K personnel will:

1. Assist with establishing an acceptable kosher menu.

2. Work with the correctional food service representative to establish the required preparation protocols.

3. Provide guidance regarding restrictions that apply on Sabbath and Jewish holidays.

4. Review the videos of the kosher preparations to verify that the kosher guidelines are being followed.

5. Visit the facilities and do on-site inspections of the kosher prep areas, ingredients etc.

6. Meet with the food service staff as well as the inmates doing the preparations to assure that hey have a good understanding of the kosher requirements.

7. Meet with inmates that are on the kosher program to address their concerns and thereby minimize litigation regarding the kosher diets.

8. Try to preempt issues by pointing out potential concerns to the correctional staff, and offer possible solutions to avoid them from becoming problems.

This is copied from http://scrollk.org/kosher-consulting-for-correctional-facilities.12 According to the Las Vegas Review Journal13, "The board without comment also approved a $393,824, four-year contract with Denver-based Scroll K. Vaad Hakashrus to certify kosher food for inmates of Jewish and other faiths who have strict dietary and food preparation requirements." If halachic standards are not met, this could amount to RICO (N.R.S. 207.350-520, n.b. 207.470; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-68, n.b., § 1964), if not Conspiracy of RICO (N.R.S. 207.360; 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)), Scheme to Defraud (N.R.S. 205.377-380; 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1344, 1346, & 1349) Perjury, Subornation of Perjury, Grand Theft, Insurance Fraud, etc.,

Also there's no time frame as to how and when these protocols are being followed, not to mention if they're being followed, and what channels inmates can resort to so as to contest any discrepancies. E.g., whether the vegetables were grown in the shemitta year14, whether the fruit is orlah15, pas Yisroel food preparation16, chadash grain17, if the milk is cholov Yisroel,18 if the food is rooked bishul Yisroal,19 whether there's no chelev,20 whether the meat is shechita,21 etc.,

The camera recordings don't cover the sack after they leave the cage, and so they are sometimes raided too even if they still look untampered.

And the inmates serving the CFP food have no kosher experience or training, so trying to complain is an exercise in futility. As soon as the inmate leaves the line he cannot claim that his food has been impaired because the c/o's blame the Jew. One such grievance where the inmate attached the expired wrapper was denied as the responder accused the grievant of holding onto the wrapper for over half a year just for the sake of making a grievance22. So, he either has to go hungry again or blemish his soul.

COUNT V

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

For at least the past two (2) years and longer, Plaintiffs are and have been subjected to a CFP diet rather than a proper Orthodox Jewish diet as prisoners of the NDOC because of the skimpy, unduly restricted and often cold or uncooked foodstuffs that are provided.

There is no actual Jewish food (e.g., kugel, kishka, tzimmes, cholent, gefilte fish, knishes, etc.), instead the menu is akin to a bland Spanish Nutraloaf. The Florida system before the lawsuit23 was two hots and never-ending meals of cabbage, peanut butter, beans, and sardines24. The NDOC is feeding the Jews pig slop. This goes against ACA standards infra, besides Jewish halachah.

Jews can't even buy traditional food from the canteen or package program save for bagels. Assuming Jews could afford to pay to eat, they cannot purchase Kosher food from the Liberator magazine (although it was once a part of the Kosher diet) such as Meal Mart. And what the prison does let inmates purchase — HDSP Warden Williams and Lovelock Correctional Center ("LCC") Lt. Olivas frequently deny Jews anything they can — takes months to be received. Coupled with every other hindrance, Jewish observance is severely burdened.

The unappetizing and non-Jewish items of food are designed to demoralize an observant Orthodox Jew from taking part in the CFP. There are few, if ever, cooked meat meals, fish meals (which are required for every Shabbos), or celebratory items as will discussed hereafter. This was upheld in Horacek, Doc. 125, s.v. OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 114, pp.6-7 (W.D. Mich. Mar. 31st 2017): "The very next sentence, then, Defendants argue that so "long as the MDOC serves a meal that does not actively violate the plaintiff's professed religious beliefs, there should be no further obligation." (Id.) But that begs precisely what Plaintiff claims here. Plaintiff contends he needs to eat meat or fish on Saturdays and holy days, and that contention is really just one additional dietary need that he claims is required by his beliefs." Ibid., In short, a Kosher Diet must conform to the Shulchan Aruch as delineated above.

Recently, a Court allowed a case to move forward based on many of these same issues:

— Endicott v. Allen, No. 2:17-CV-29 DDN, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 209998 at *8 (E.D. Mo. Dec. 21st, 2017).

COUNT VI

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

A proper Orthodox Jewish religious diet includes regular festive and/or at least traditional foodstuffs. As previous stated in Count V, ante at pg. 13, the Defendants' CFP is designed to dishearten and discourage a Kosher believer by not including traditional festive items and otherwise dampen the spirits of Plaintiffs and their status quo by depriving their class of spiritually proper means of sustenance without legitimate governmental purpose.

There is no festive holiday foods: 3 meals of Shabbat (per Shabbat §117b) plus Melaveh Malkah (per Shabbat §119b) and fish on one of them, latkes on Chanukah, blintzes and burekas and cheesecake on Shavuot25, hamantaschen on Purim (Jews in LCC were denied this in 2017/5777), apples and honey for Rosh HaShannah, etc.,

Like Count V, supra, this is easily resolved by implementing a strictly Jewish Kosher diet either with TV dinners or (preferably) modeled after the federal BOP program.

At HDSP, e.g., when the Rabbi brought festive food for Chanukah, inmates never received them.

COUNT VII

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

Establishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. 1)

Takings Clause (U.S. Const. amend. V)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII)

Equal Protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Procedural Due Process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq.)

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.)

Contract Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

Defendants, their agents, and those working in close proximity, as well as the custom, policy, and practice of the NDOC is/was for over the past two (2) years to harass and punish Plaintiffs for occasional, somewhat petty and alleged "violations" of the CFP rules in their governmental definitions of how to engage in a "Kosher" diet by disciplinary charges and/or by removal from the CFP altogether.

The CFP punishes Jews whom are adjudged to have violated the NDOC's definition of "kosher" by Taking the Jews food "until after the grievance process has concluded [ ]" per A.R. 814.03(9)26 which is approximately six (6) months — even for a first time punishment — violative of the Inmate Disciplinary Manual (02/21/2017 ed.)27, § (4)(C)(5) (food can't be used as punishment). pg. 24, appended to A.R. 707. This does not even comport with A.R. 73228 which is for food abusive inmates and does "not exceed seven consecutive days for each incident." Id. at § 732.01(7) (06/17/12 ed.). At least these people get fed, but not the Jews and this for half a year! See McEachin v. McGuinnis, 357 F.3d 197, 203 (2d Cir. 2004). Jews have had a right to eat since at least 197529.

In no circumstances may restrictions or disciplinary sanctions amount to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The following practices, in particular, shall be prohibited:

Rule 43, § (1), of the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners ("Nelsor Mandela Rules") states:

This constitutes an ongoing and unnecessary interference in Plaintiffs' ability to engage it Kosher dietary practice as there was few if any accommodations made to him for "violations" suet as taking his food out of the filthy dining halls, giving food away rather than waste it, etc.,

A solution could include temporarily (albeit not through the grievance process which would violate Separation of Powers as the NDOC cannot determine sincerity) demoting the Jewish inmate back to CFP until his Orthodox sincerity is established by the Chaplain howbeit the administrative appeals would have to go through the aforenamed Chaplain.

An additional note, this includes inmates who don't keep the minimum percentages of meals even if he is not hungry or does not wish to desecrate his soul or contaminate his body. Weight loss is not a legitimate penological interest30. And in Moorish Sci. Temple of Am. v. Smith, 693 F.2d 987, 990 (2d Cir. 1982)31, the Court said "the denial of kosher food to a Jewish inmate is not justified by an important or substantial government objective."

"All prisoners shall be treated with the respect due to their inherent dignity and value as human beings. No prisoner shall be subjected to, and all prisoners shall be protected from, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, for which no circumstances whatsoever may be invoked as a justification." Nelson Mandela Rules, Rule 132. First principle.

A permanent injunction and declaratory relief is warranted to ensure that Jews can continue eating whilst contesting any challenges to their religious convictions instead of giving them a Hobson's Choice33. Beerheide, id. at 1189 (10th Cir. 2002) (this quote would apply moreso with HDSP bundling chapel, gym, law library, visiting, yard, tier, etc., all one day for lower level/Protective Custody("PC")34).

COUNT VIII

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. 2000cc, et seq.)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII)

Equal Protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

The Ba'al HaMaor, Rav Zerachiah HaLevi from Gerona, who lived in the mid-1100s. He writes35 that it is a Takanas Chachamim to enjoy the Shabbos (i.e., Shabbat, `the Sabbath,' all used interchangeably) with a hot dish. He adds that whoever does not do so is suspect of being a `Min' (heretic, a.k.a Apikores)! The reason being that the heterodox Kara'im (Karaites), who denied the Rabbinic Mesorah, prohibited eating any hot food on Shabbos. The Ba'al HaMaor explains36 that one who refuses to eat a hot dish on Shabbos (cooked before Shabbos), is suspect of following their heretical interpretation of the Torah and not those of our Chachmei HaDoros. On the other hand, the Ba'al HaMaor assures that whoever makes sure to cook, heat up (before Shabbos), and eat a hot dish on Shabbos will merit seeing `the end of days.' his words are codified in halacha by the Rema as a `Mitzvah' and eating Cholent on Shabbos is considered `Minhag Yisrael' by the Mishna Berura37.

Without getting into the pilpul, all holy days especially Shabbat require warm festive foods — not frozen foodstuffs. Accord Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 72:17; see also chs. 103, 116, 119, 129, 135, 139, & 142. Besides meat on Shabbos, fish is also required. Accord Horacek v. Heyns, 1 No. 2:13-cv-280; 2:15-cv-38, Doc. No. 97 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 15th, 2016). Anything less is punishment, retaliation, and retribution. The mainline gentiles are served warm festive foods even for the Superbow]38. What do Jews get? Cold frozen meat and dry brittle corn tortillas to celebrate their holy days.

COUNT IX

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Establishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 612-14 (1971)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. & 2000cc, et seq.)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII)

Equal Protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir. 2005) (retaliation)

Procedural Due Process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

The NDOC targets Jews for not practicing Judaism as they define it39. Accord Willis, ad loc.; Searles v. Dechant, 393 F.3d 1126, 1131 n.6 (10th Cir. 2004) ("`[N]o state may define `kosher' according to the beliefs of any particular sect of Judaism.'") (citation omitted). This is accomplished by writing up (sc., NOC) Jews for eating their food wrong40 (by, e.g., eating a biscuit or pastries and such that are naturally kosher, or offenses as petty as throwing away41, not eating, giving away, or leaving food behind42) and ignore mainliners who also pass food and the like. Hartmann v. Cal. Dep't of Corr., 707 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2013) (The Establishment Clause "means at least" that "[n]either a state nor the Federal Government ... can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another.") (quoting Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1, 15 (1947)); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 689 (1984) (O'Connor, J., concurring) ("The second and more direct infringement is government endorsement or disapproval of religion."). E.g., certain inmates (names redacted)43 have been written up and lost the right to eat44 at Southern Nevada Correctional Center ("SNCC"), 30 days loss of canteen for a NOC, a major NOC given for donating CFP food to a hungry (charity is a commandment) and received 10 days loss of phone time. The list goes on. This is absurd. It is repugnant to law and dignity of man.

The 10th Circuit recently reversed a decision involving such a Zero-Tolerance policy. Reed v. Bryant, No. 17-6082 (10th Cir., Dec. 13th, 2017).

A.R. 814 says nothing about issuing NOC's for not eating food properly. Rather, the correct vehicle is a Faith Sincerity Challenge form45. In practice, NOC's should only be trafficking or gambling away kosher food, etc., actual disruptions to the safety and security to the institution not kosher cops; sincerity vis-à-vis religiosity. According to one 2nd level grievance, c/o's are in the chow hall for safety and security reasons only. One inmate was written up for not eating at HDSP even though he just had his teeth extracted and then the same officer tried to take his meals. In turn, this NOC can level reduce the inmate to a disciplinary unit.

Plus, writing up Jews for not practicing their religion 100% immaculately not only Entangles the c/o's into the religion practices of the Jew but furthermore inhibits the Free Exercise of religion. "Courts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs because the believer admits that he is `struggling' with his position or because his beliefs are not articulated with the clarity and precision that a more sophisticated person might employ." Thomas v. Rev. Bd., Ind. Empl. Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 715 (1981)46.

COUNT X

The following civil rights have been violated: Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seg.)

Establishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Equal Protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

Lovelock Correctional Center ("LCC") segregates Phase II and Phase I Jews (and oftentimes excluding Phase II Jews) for Shabbat and high holy days unlike Natives, pagans, christians, muslims, et al., Intake usually has no service for they are dependent on the whim and caprice of the guards. This forces LCC inmates to use the activity room which is also used for barbers and is completely sacrilege. More importantly, it deprives the Jewish community at LCC from having a minyan which in turn denies all the Jews throughout the prison from worshiping the holy days as most of the important prayers require a minyan of ten (10) Jews. Cf., Ben-Levi v. Brown, 136 S.Ct. 930, No. 14-10186 (U.S. Feb. 29, 2016). This is not done at any other facility to the undersigned's knowledge. See Shakur, supra.

In general, inmates in lower levels (relatively speaking, viz., this means intake, disciplinary, or intermediary units besides Level/Phase 1) have restricted access to religious services47. HDSP, LCC, and ESP have little to no access but even NNCC only gives Jews Friday afternoon which incongruous with Shabbat. Having a Shabbos meal is part and parcel of worship, but by denying a Jew the ability to congregate his observance is burdened48.

COUNT XI

The following civil rights have been violated:

Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

The NDOC is not compliant with any of the accreditation standards. The American Correctional Association Restrictive Housing Performance Based Standards (August 2016)49 requires that alternative meals (foods provided to comply with the medical, religious, or security requirements) must be designed to ensure that basic health needs are met and are provided in strict compliance with polices signed by the chief executive officer, the chief medical officer, the registered dietician, and for the religious diets, by the appropriate religious leader. Accord Federal Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 4700.06 (September 13, 2011, ed.) (updating the religious diet program, inter alia, "[a]dd[ing] requirement for a national Passover and ceremonial meal menu.")50.

The CFP meals ought to conform to the federal Bureau of Prisons' CFP. 28 C.F.R. § 548.20; Bureau of Prisons Program Statement 5360.08. The federal prisons are well accredited. ACA Standards:

▀ Standards for Adult Correctional Institutions, 4th Edition: 4-4160, 4-4196M, 4-4313, 4-4314, 4-4315, 4-4316M, 4-4317, 4-4318, 4-4349, 4-4320, 4-4321M, 4-4322M, 4-4323, 4-4324M, 4-4325, 4-4326, 4-4327, 4-4328. P4700.06 9/13/20115

▀ Performance Based Standards for Adult Local Detention Facilities, 4th Edition: 4-ALDF-2D-02M, 4-ALDF-4A-02, 4-ALDF-4A-04, 4-ALDF-4A-05, 4-ALDF-4A-06, 4-ALDF-4A-07M, 4-ALDF-4A-08, 4-ALDF-4A-09, 4-ALDF-4A-10, 4-ALDF-4A-11M, 4-ALDF-4A-12, 4-ALDF-4A-13M, 4-ALDF-4A-14, 4-ALDF-4A-15M, 4-ALDF-4A-16, 4-ALDF-4A-17, 4-ALDF-4A-18.

▀ Standards for Administration of Correctional Agencies, 2nd Edition: 2-CO-4C-O.

All 50 states receive federal prison funds conditioned upon RLUIPA compliance51, Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 715 n. 4 (2005), so there's no reason why the NDOC cannot become compliant. This is done, inter alia, to prevent strife, as well as limiting the appeal and desire of different foods, by having a spiritual diet conform as closely as possible to the main line. The gentiles get catsup, mustard, relish, etc., why can't Jews? This would necessarily give each institutional Food Service Manager the ability to tailor a menu for each specific prisons need subject to kashrut approval.

The CFP is barely a two-week rotating diet whereas the mainline is four week. But if one were to carefully look at the CFP, one would notice that it is in fact a 2 day repeating meal. Breakfast is identical, lunch is PB&J then tuna, PB&J then tuna, and dinner is quinoa, beans and/or green beans or something similar. And if anything is missing, then PB&J is substituted. This is a type of gruel.

A further point can be made as to whether there is any supervision outside of the cage such as ungloved inmates handling or stealing from the opened cellophane clamshells.

COUNT XII

The following civil rights have been violated:

Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. 2000cc, et seg.)

Petition Government For Redress Of Grievances (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Procedural Due Process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Contract Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. 1)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

There's no appeal process from Chaplain to Director's Religious Review Team ("RRT"), A.R. 810.04(2), to challenge anything. They meet practically once a year, only serve for three years, and then are recycled. This is hardly an appellate avenue to contest anything religious. Most chaplains are overworked and understaffed and so a plethora of appeals are sent to the RRT for an indefinite (if ever) amount of time.

Also, such a streamlined process should as well be for property insofar as when one Jew has property approved there is no need for every other Jew to get approval.

Lastly, there's nothing to guarantee that if kosher if ever served, that Jews will be able to continue eating again if/when the NDOC decides to take deduct kosher food from the budget yet again52. Compare Ward, infra, Greene, ad loc., Shilling, infra, Ackerman, infra, Parks, ad loc., and Roberts v. Klein, 770 F.Supp.2d 1102 (D. Nev. 2011)53. These "separate adjudications [] create a risk of decisions that are inconsistent with or [are] dispositive of other class members' claims," which is exactly what Fed.R.Civ.P., R.23, seeks to prevent. If history is any sort of witness, the NDOC's word is worth bubkes. See post at p. 34, n. 49. Nevada's history is similar to Sisney v. Reisch, 2008 SD 72 (S.D. 2008).

If the NDOC will continue this trend, then a Prisoner Releaser Order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(3) is being requested so Jews can eat.

COUNT XIII

The following civil rights have been violated:

Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Establishment Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. 2000cc, et seq.)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII)

Equal Protection (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559 (9th Cir.2005) (retaliation)

Procedural Due Process (U.S. Const. amend. XIV)

Contract Clause (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10, cl. I)

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

The CFP program allows Jews to be rounded up into pogroms. A.R. 814, Attachment 1, pg. 1 (pg. 9 online), 1st Acknowledgment. No other religion has such a clause for any of their accommodations, thus this is an unconscionable contractual provision. Cf., Shilling v. Crawford, 536 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1232-34 (D. Nev. 2008).

Another issue is retaliatory transfers54. Ackerman v. State of Nv. Dep't of Corr.,55 No.:2:11-CV-00883-GMN-PAL56, at *10 (D. Nev. Aug. 16, 2012)57 Cf., Broyles v. Presley, No. 17-3174 SAC, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182968 (D. Kan., Nov. 3rd, 2017). While depopulating inmates to facilities that offer services, etc., may appear ostensibly as prima facie solutions to remediating civil rights violations, the primary and practical effect of such is quite to the contrary. See, e.g., Woodring v. Liebel, No. 1:14-cv-00165-JMS-DML, at *11-12 (S.D. Ind. Sep. 14, 2016). Some inmates are located in southern prisons due to vicinity of family, whilst others need to be at medical facilities. In any event, it is ludicrous to deny civil rights at any facility simply because another offers such. And this is aggravated a fortiori where the inmate, by way of the transfer, now has less access to a law library for maintenance of the suit.

Any such relief that this Court order or any settlement must include a proviso to guarantee inmates the right to seek judicial enforcement considering the turbulent history of the Kosher diet as was done, e.g., in Cooper v. Ca., No. C 02-03712 JSW, 2007 WL 1703829, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2007).

COUNT XIV

The following civil rights have been violated:

Free Exercise Clause (U.S. Const. amend. I)

RLUIPA (42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seg.)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (U.S. Const. amend. VIII)58

Supporting Facts:

Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference hereto the entirety of factual allegations in this complaint hereof as if specifically fully set forth herein.

Forcing inmates to choose between medical diets to accommodate, say, heart conditions59, or a religious diet is a Sofia's Choice.

As the Ninth Circuit has usefully observed, there is a distinction between

"Every person has the right to the preservation of his health through sanitary and social measures relating to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to the extent permitted by public and community resources." American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, art. XI; see also id. at arts. III & V.