Opinion ID: 593684
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Constitutionality of Policy

Text: 6 Frost contends that the prison policy prohibiting close custody inmates from attending congregate religious services violates the first amendment. 7 A prison regulation that interferes with the right of prisoners to practice their religion is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89 (1987). The following factors are relevant in determining whether a prison regulation is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests: (1) whether the regulation has a logical connection to the interests invoked to justify it; (2) whether alternative means of exercising the right on which the regulation impinges remain open to inmates; (3) whether accommodating the asserted right will have an adverse effect on the prison; and (4) whether ready alternatives that fully accommodate the asserted right could be implemented at de minimis cost to valid penological interests. Allen v. Toombs, 827 F.2d 563, 567 (9th Cir.1987). 8 Here, the prison policy prohibiting close custody inmates, who constitute the greatest security risk, from attending congregate religious services is logically connected to the legitimate penological interests of security and safety. Frost has an alternative means of exercising his right through individual ministrations by the prison chaplain. Allowing close custody inmates to attend congregate religious services could jeopardize the security concerns expressed by prison officials. No ready alternative is apparent that would fully accommodate Frost's asserted right to attend congregate religious services at de minimis cost to valid penological interests. Accordingly, we find that the policy is constitutional. See Toombs, 827 F.2d at 567 (upholding prison policy prohibiting maximum security inmates from congregating with general population for the purpose of participating in rituals of the Native American religion).