Eichel v. MacDonoald et al, No. 1:2012cv01220 - Document 3 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge T. S. Ellis, III on 11/5/2012. (rban, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILE IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TH \f EASTERN DISTRICTOF VIRGINIA NOV - 5 2012 U E CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA Alexandria Division Albert Charles Eichel, Plaintiff, l:12cv!220(TSE/TRJ) v. Ms. MacDonald, et ah, Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Albert Charles Eichel, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging staff at Norfolk City Jail violated his First Amendment right to freedom of religion by refusing to provide him with a Torah or a kosher meal. He also alleges that failing to provide him with a kosher meal constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Plaintiff has moved to proceed in forma pauperis in this action. After reviewing plaintiffs complaint, his claims must be dismissed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l) for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.1 Section 1915A provides: (a) Screening. The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. (b) Grounds for dismissal. On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
