Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03056/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03056-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

ocr 1 o 1990 

ROBERT L.1-fOECJ<ER 

Clerk 

STEVEN E. THOMAS, JOHN F. YARBROUGH, 

DONALDS. GLEW, and TIM MAYNARD, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

v. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

UNITED STATES SECRETARY OF DEFENSE ) 

RICHARD CHENEY, COMMANDANT BERRONG OF) 

THE UNITED STATES DISCIPLINARY BAR- ) 

RACKS, and U.S. DISCIPLINARY BARRACKS) 

LITERARY ADVISORY BOARD, ) 

Defendants-Appellees. 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 90-3056 

(D.C. No. 87-4272-S) 

( D. Kan.) 

Before LOGAN, SEYMOUR, and TACHA, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Plaintiffs are present and former inmates of the United 

States Disciplinary Barracks (USDB), a maximum security 

*This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3056 Document: 010110059555 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 1 
• 

• institution, who challenge the prison's exclusion of "whiteoriented" literature and its denial of certain inmates' requests 

to form a white ethnic club. Plaintiffs contend that the prison's 

actions have violated their First, Fifth, and Fourteenth1 

Amendment rights. The district court rejected the inmates' 

contentions, and we affirm. 

The inmates first argue that USDB Regulation No. 28-12 is 

both facially invalid under the standard set out in Thornburg v. 

Abbott, 109 S. Ct. 1874 (1989), and unconstitutional as applied to 

the white racially-oriented literature. The district court 

carefully reviewed the evidence under the standards set out in 

Thornburg. It then concluded that 

"Regulation No. 28-1 is rationally related to the 

legitimate interest of maintaining security in the 

disciplinary barracks. This regulation, which provides 

for an individualized determination of questionable 

incoming material through a multi-level review process, 

rationally serves the purpose of precluding the risk of 

disorder in the disciplinary barracks." 

Rec., vol. II, doc. 39 at 7. We agree with the district court 

that the regulation is "'reasonably related to legitimate 

penological interests,'" Thornburg, 109 s. Ct. at 1879 (quoting 

1 The Fourteenth Amendment applies only to states, and so is 

inapplicable in this case. 

2 USDB Reg. No. 28-1, 7(c)(3), allows the exclusion of printed 

material which "(c]ommunicates information designed to encourage 

prisoners to disrupt the institution by strikes, riots, fights, or 

racial or religious hatred." Rec., vol. I, doc. 32, exh. A at 2. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3056 Document: 010110059555 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 2 
Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987)), and otherwise meets the 

Thornburg requirements for facial validity. 

With respect to the inmates' claim that the regulation is 

unconstitutional as applied, the district court found 

"that there has been no evidence presented that the USDB 

commandant rejected on a wholesale basis any particular 

type of publication .... Instead, the evidence ... 

shows that each rejection was based on reasons listed in 

the regulations .•• [and] that the USDB officials made 

a conscientious review before deciding whether the 

material should be rejected." 

Rec., vol. II, doc. 39 at 9. We have reviewed the record and the 

relevant authority, and we find no error in the district court's 

determination. 

The inmates also challenge the denial of their request to 

form a "European Heritage Club" for white prisoners. They contend 

that this club would be a "cultural/historical organization" 

analogous to the Afro-American Cultural Organization and the Latin 

Studies Group, both approved by the prison. They argue that the 

lack of distinctions between the approved and disapproved groups "' 

suggests that racial animus prompted the European Club's 

rejection. Under Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Labor Union, 

433 U.S. 119, 134 (1977), prison officials "need only demonstrate 

a rational basis for their distinctions between organizational 

groups." The district court found credible the testimony of the 

prison's director of mental health, who determined that "the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3056 Document: 010110059555 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 3 
inmates' request to form a European Heritage Group posed a 

potential security threat and served no rehabilitative purpose." 

Rec., vol. II, doc. 39 at 5. The district court noted that the 

Afro-American and Latin groups, by contrast, provided cultural 

support, assisted in inmate rehabilitation, and were beneficial to 

inmate mental health. Our review of the record supports the 

district court's finding that the USDB presented legitimate and 

rational reasons for denying the inmates' request to form a whiteoriented club. 

The order of the district court is AFFIRMED. 

-4-

Entered for the Court 

Stephanie K. Seymour 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3056 Document: 010110059555 Date Filed: 10/10/1990 Page: 4