The district court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Salas's claims, concluding that Salas had no fundamental constitutional right to visit with his children while in prison and that Stillwater's policies, procedures, and practices were rationally related to legitimate penological purposes. On appeal from summary judgment, this court must determine whether any genuine issues of material fact exist and whether the district court erred in applying the law. This court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. The nonmoving party, however, cannot rely on the pleadings alone to defeat a summary judgment motion but instead must produce specific facts which establish the existence of a genuine issue for trial. Salas argues that respondents violated his constitutional right to substantive due process by prohibiting him from visiting with his children at Stillwater, where there was no legitimate penological goal justifying the prohibition.
Parents have a substantial and fundamental right to care and companionship with their children.
However, convicted prisoners have no absolute constitutional right to visitation with family members. The Supreme Court in Turner listed four factors relevant to this determination. Third, the court must evaluate how accommodation of the right will impact guards, inmates, and resources at the prison, again giving deference to correction officials. Salas argues that analyzing the four Turner factors, it is clear that respondents did not restrict his visitation with his children based on legitimate penological interests, but rather determined that visitation would not be in the children's best interests. First, there is a valid, rational connection between Stillwater's visitation restriction and a legitimate governmental interest.