Daniel Lee Holterman v. Barbara Roberts Frank A. Hall Oregon Department of Corrections

103 F.3d 138 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Daniel Lee HOLTERMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Barbara ROBERTS; Frank A. Hall; Oregon Department of Corrections, Defendants-Appellees. No. 96-35136. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 18, 1996. * Decided Nov. 20, 1996. Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Daniel Lee Holterman, an Oregon state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's summary judgment in favor of defendants in Holterman's action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb. Holterman alleged that defendants failed to provide a kosher diet in accordance with his religious beliefs in violation of his First Amendment rights. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we vacate and remand. 3 Before entering summary judgment, "[d]istrict courts are obligated to advise prisoner pro se…