Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04206/USCOURTS-ca10-90-04206-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

• 

FILED 1a 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALsUnited States C.Oprt (?f Ap;>ea . Tent.'1 C1rcu1t 

TENTH CIRCUIT SEP 10 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk ) 

OLIVER BENJAMIN GERRISH, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

) 

FRED HURST; CAPT. TOM BONA; ) 

GARY DELAND; GERALD COOK; ) 

DAVID FRANCHINA; T.A. BEGAR; ) 

GEORGE STRONG; PAULETTE NANCE, ) 

) 

Defendants-Appellees. ) 

) 

No. 90-4206 

No. 90-4207 

(D. Utah, No. 88-C-811-A) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before McKAY, SEYMOUR, and EBEL, 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. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal from the 

district court's granting of summary judgment and injunctive 

relief. We affirm the granting of summary judgment for defendants 

and reverse the injunction. 

* 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: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 1 
FACTS 

Appellant Oliver Benjamin Gerrish, Jr., is an inmate at the 

Utah State Prison in Draper, Utah. In November, 1985, Utah State 

Prison officials allowed appellant to purchase a 13-inch blackand-white television set with his own funds and further allowed 

him to retain the television for his personal use in his cell at 

the prison. Appellant was also allowed to purchase a radio from 

the prison commissary, which he also was allowed to retain in his 

cell for his personal use. 

In September of 1988, approximately three years after 

plaintiff was allowed to purchase the television and radio, prison 

officials announced a new policy governing the possession and use 

of televisions and radios in prisoners' cells. The new policy 

required all inmates to dispose of their televisions and radios by 

December 31, 1988, after which they would be defined as 

contraband, confiscated by prison officials, and ultimately 

donated to charitable organizations. The new prison policy gave 

prisoners the option of disposing of excess property in one of 

three ways. The inmate could choose to send the property to an 

address specified by the inmate, release the property to a 

specified visitor, or donate the property to a charitable 

organization of the inmate's choice. The regulations gave 

inmates 30 days to dispose of their confiscated property. In 

addition, inmates were offered the option of leasing a prisonowned television. 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 2 
Appellant made no arrangements for the disposition of his 

personal property, and in January of 1989, the prison confiscated 

his television and radio. On September 12, 1989, appellant filed 

suit against prison officials alleging that they had violated his 

constitutional rights by taking his property without just 

compensation and in violation of his right to due process. 

Appellant sought: (1) declaratory relief that the prison policy of 

confiscating inmate owned televisions and radios is 

unconstitutional; (2) a permanent injunction enjoining the prison 

from disposing of plaintiff's property and requiring defendants to 

safely store the property until returned to plaintiff; (3) a 

return of the radio and television in question, or just 

compensation; and (4) consequential and punitive damages. 

In evaluating the prison policy, the district court parsed 

the prison regulations into two component parts: confiscation of 

the property and disposal of the property. With regard to the 

confiscation of the television and radio, the district court found 

that appellant had "failed to identify any constitutional defect 

in the promulgation and implementation of the new prison audio/ 

visual regulations." Mem. Op. and Order at 11. The court 

accordingly granted summary judgment in favor of the prison 

officials. Id. However, with regard to the disposal of 

appellant's property, the district court concluded that "the 

prison should •.. provide reasonable assistance in the disposal 

of the property in a reasonable way." Id. at 15. Citing the 

prison's "duty to avoid waste or the unnecessary loss of inmate's 

personal property," id. at 12, the district court enjoined the 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 3 
prison officials from disposing of appellant's television and 

radio until such time as appellant was afforded the opportunity to 

transfer his property to a friend or relative, donate the property 

to a friend or charitable organization of his own choosing, or 

sell his property "within a reasonable time (60-90 days) in a 

commercially reasonable manner with a reasonable amount of 

assistance from prison personnel (such as securing bids from local 

used appliance purchasers)." Injunction and Judgment at 2. Both 

appellant and the prison officials now appeal the district court's 

ruling. 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

When reviewing the district court's granting of summary 

judgment, an appellate court is obliged to apply the same standard 

as was applied by the district court. Thus, summary judgment will 

be upheld only if "there is no genuine issue as to any material 

fact and .•. the moving party is entitled to judgment as a 

matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). We find that the district 

court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the prison 

officials. 

As the Supreme Court noted in Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 

89 (1987), "when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' 

constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably 

related to legitimate penological interests." In considering a 

challenged prison regulation, a court should look to the following 

four factors: 

First, there must be a "valid, rational connection" 

between the prison regulation and the legitimate 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 4 
governmental interest put forward to justify it ..•. 

A second factor ••. is whether there are alternative 

means of exercising the right that remain open to prison 

inmates .... A third consideration is the impact 

accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will 

have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation 

of prison resources generally •... Finally, the 

absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the 

reasonableness of a prison regulation. 

Id. at 89-90. 

We agree with the district court that: 

Prison officials have a legitimate interest in 

restricting the possession and use of privately owned 

radios and televisions in prison cells. Such 

restrictions may reduce the number of conflicts over the 

ownership of private property, reduce the likelihood 

that inmates will convert electronic devices into 

weapons or devices for escape, limit the ability of 

inmates to conceal contraband within the devices and 

facilitate the orderly administration of the prison. By 

allowing only prison owned and maintained televisions in 

prison cells, the prison is able to ensure the proper 

maintenance of the device to reduce the likelihood of 

personal or property injury through malfunction of a 

damaged or otherwise unsafe appliance. Finally, the 

connection between the new regulations and these 

legitimate objectives is sufficiently close to refute 

any argument that the new regulations are arbitrary and 

irrational. 

Mem Op. and Order at 11. We therefore think it was appropriate 

for the district court to grant summary judgment on behalf of the 

prison . ff .. 1 l o icia s. 

1 Appellant additionally invokes the equal protection clause in 

maintaining that "defendants' policy was arbitrarily applied to 

[appellant] only" -- he attaches several affidavits for the 

proposition that "[o]ther inmates' personal TVs/radios were not 

seized." App. Opening Br. at 2. However, this equal protection 

claim was not raised in the district court below. See R. Vol. I, 

Doc. 64, Second Amended Complaint. Since we will not consider 

issues raised for the first time on appeal, Gillihan v. 

Shillinger, 872 F.2d 935, 938 (10th Cir. 1989), we decline to 

address this issue here. We therefore affirm the district court 

in granting summary judgment. 

-5-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 5 
However, we note that the granting of summary judgment was 

limited to the confiscation of prisoner's property. Since the 

prison officials had not yet attempted to dispose of the property 

-- the television and radio were being stored in prison storage 

facilities pending the disposition of this case -- the district 

court had no occasion to pass on the reasonableness of the 

disposal component of the Utah prison regulation. The district 

court considered this aspect of the regulation only when it ruled 

on appellant's claim for injunctive relief. 

INJUNCTION 

The district court rejected appellant's assertion that the 

prison should be required to store his property until his release, 

concluding that "[s]tate prison facilities were never intended to 

be used as warehouses for the personal property of those 

incarcerated at the prison." Mem. Op. and Order at 14. However, 

the district court implicitly concluded that the prison policy for 

disposing of such confiscated property was not reasonable, at 

least insofar as it related to prisoners -- like appellant who 

had "acquired and retained the television and radio with the 

permission and assistance of prison officials." Id. at 15. 

The district court, in effect, ruled that due process required 

prison officials to "give the prisoner reasonable assistance under 

the circumstances in allowing the prisoner to offer [his property] 

for sale to used appliance dealers for a period of time." Id. at 

16. Thus, the district court enjoined the prison officials "from 

disposing of appellant's property as presently contemplated." Id. 

-6-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 6 
The scope of appellate review of a district court's 

discretionary grant of an injunction is narrow. Unless the 

district court abuses its discretion, commits an error of law, or 

is clearly erroneous in its factual findings, the appellate court 

may not set _aside the injunction. Hartford House, Ltd. v. 

Hallmark Cards, Inc., 846 F.2d 1268, 1270 (10th Cir. 1988); City 

of Chanute v. Kansas Gas & Electric Co., 754 F.2d 310, 312 (10th 

Cir. 1985); Otero Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Fed. Reserve Bank, 665 

F.2d 275, 276 (10th Cir. 1981). We think it was an error of law 

for the district court to conclude that the prison regulations 

were unreasonable insofar as they related to the disposal of this 

appellant's property. Applying the Turner standard to this aspect 

of the prison policy, we think it clear that the prison's policy 

for disposing of inmate televisions and radios was "reasonably 

related to legitimate penological interests." 482 U.S. at 89. 

Moreover, we note that the Utah policy is remarkably similar to 

the policies espoused by other states and the federal Bureau of 

P . 2 risons. Since there is insufficient evidence in the record to 

establish that 30 days is an inadequate amount of time for this 

inmate to arrange for the disposal of his disallowed property, and 

2 According to 28 C.F.R. § 553.13(b)(iii) (Procedures for 

handling contraband): 

If the inmate establishes ownership [of property], but 

the item is identified as contraband, [prison] staff 

shall mail such items ..• , at the inmate's expense, 

to a destination of the inmate's choice. Where the 

inmate has established ownership of a contraband item, 

but is unwilling, although financially able to pay, or 

refuses to provide a mailing address for return of the 

property, the property is to be disposed of through 

approved methods, including destruction of the property. 

-7-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 7 
since this record does not establish that this inmate is unable 

reasonably to dispose of his disallowed property without the 

assistance of the prison authorities, we VACATE the injunction 

against the prison officials. Appellees shall, however, allow 

appellant an additional 30 days from the date of this order to 

dispose of his disallowed property before they dispose of it. 

CONCLUSION 

We AFFIRM the district court's granting of summary judgment 

for the prison officials. However, we REVERSE the district court 

on the imposition of injunctive relief. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

-8-

Appellate Case: 90-4206 Document: 010110090097 Date Filed: 09/10/1991 Page: 8