Opinion ID: 3013886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The third and fourth Turner factors

Text: require consideration as to whether As to whether an evidentiary basis accommodating the asserted right would is required for the remaining three Turner have an adverse impact “on guards and prongs, we repeat our observation that “we other inmates[] and on the allocation of have historically viewed these inquiries as prison resources,” as well as a being fact-intensive . . . [requiring] ‘a determination as to whether alternatives contextual, record-sensitive analysis.’” exist that can accommodate the right “at de Wolf, 297 F.3d at 310 (quoting DeHart v. minimus costs to valid penological Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 59 n.8 (3d Cir. 2000) interests.” Turner, 482 U.S. at 90-91. The (en banc)). Where the link between the District Court’s apparent factual regulation at issue and the legitimate conclusion that accommodation “would government interest is sufficiently increase the risks of sexual crimes and obvious, no evidence may be necessary to misconduct within the prison walls,” is evaluate the other Turner prongs. See, speculative and unsupported. The e.g., Waterman, 183 F.3d at 217; but see existence of a possible “ripple effect” on Wolf, 297 F.3d at 310 (observing that the the rehabilitation of prisoners legitimately first prong does not subsume the rest of the targeted by the Ensign Amendment could inquiry). In this case, however, we agree reasonably be disputed; certainly relevant with Ramirez that the third and fourth to this inquiry is whether those prisoners Turner factors cannot be adequately are housed separately from inmates whose assessed in the absence of an evidentiary rehabilitation would not be affected. For foundation.4 the same reason, it does not follow from reference to decisions of other courts on the same issue,” it must engage in at least stake,” factual development does not some independent analysis of whether appear necessary because the relevant the connection is rational. Wolf, 297 right “must be viewed sensibly and F.3d at 309. We are unclear from its expansively.” Waterman, 183 F.3d at passing reference to “the scholarly 219 (quoting Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at findings detailed in Amatel” whether the 417). In the context of a prison ban on District Court actually examined and certain publications, this criterion is met considered the scholarship at issue, and if the regulations “permit a broad range therefore reject the argument that its of publications to be sent, received, and reliance on these findings was sufficient read.” Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 418. for establishing the requisite rational Concerns that such a ban is overbroad connection. because it does not further the rehabilitation of particular classes of 4 With regard to the “availability of prisoners are appropriately addressed to alternate means of exercising the right at Turner’s other three prongs. 9 our decision in Waterman that limited government interest of rehabilitation distribution can never be conducted at without an adequate factual basis for so de minimus costs to valid penological doing.5 Accordingly, we will reverse the interests. See Waterman, 183 F.3d at 219 judgment of the District Court entered on (finding the third and fourth Turner prongs February 28, 2002 and remand with satisfied because the facility in question instructions to conduct an appropriate was insufficiently staffed to conduct case- proceeding before reevaluating the by-case reviews and prisoners were “more amendment and regulation under Turner. than likely” to pass materials among one another); cf. Amatel, 156 F.3d at 213 (arguing that a return to the case-by-case review embodied in the previously BOP regulation might not constitute an additional administrative burden because prison officials are required under the Ensign Amendment to examine each 5 We have not addressed the publication and determine whether it is government’s contention that the Ensign “sexually explicit or features nudity”) Amendment and its implementing (Ward, J., dissenting). Contrary to the regulation satisfy the Turner criteria decision in Amatel, we believe this to be a because they are reasonably related to the case in which factual development is legitimate penological interests of prison necessary for evaluating the Ensign security, deterrence, and punishment. Amendmen t and its im plem enting Although the District Court mentioned regulation under Turner. See Wolf, 297 “institutional security” as an interest to F.3d at 310 (“[C]ourts of appeals which the ban on sexually explicit ordinarily remand to the trial court where materials was rationally connected and the Turner factors cannot be assessed stated that accommodating the right because of an undeveloped record.”) “would increase the risks of sexual (citing Doe v. Delie, 257 F.3d 309, 317 crimes and misconduct,” its analysis (3d Cir. 2001)). focuses on the rehabilitative interest discussed in Amatel and Waterman. Cf. Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054 (9th