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.

Whether Petitioner presented an underlying First Amendment Constitutional violation