Opinion ID: 3013620
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: unreasonably interfere with the complex

Text: issues involved in managing the day-to- In Turner v. Safely the Supreme Court day activities of a prison. identified the crucial balance in assessing inmates’ claims that their constitutional Turner articulated a four factor test for rights were violated by prison regulations. determining whether a prison regulation is While “[p]rison walls do not form a barrier reasonably related to a legitimate separating prison inmates from the penological interest. 482 U.S. at 79. As protections of the Constitution. . . . ‘the we explained in Waterman v. Farmer, 183 problems of prisons in America are F.3d 208, 213 n.6 (1999) (citation complex and intractable, and, more to the omitted): point, they are not readily susceptible of [Turner] requires courts to consider resolution by decree.’” 482 U.S. at 84 (1) whether a rational connection (quoting Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. exists between the regulation and a 396, 404-405, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d neutral, legitimate government 224 (1974)). Recognizing this tension in interest; 5 (2) whether alternative principles, Turner established the standard of review for prisoner constitutional claims: “when a prison regulation 5 impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, In DeHart II we upheld the District the regulation is valid if it is reasonably Court’s finding that this factor favored the Prison. We held that a prison’s 6 means exist for inmates to exercise fourth Turner factors. 227 F.3d at 57-59. the constitutional right at issue; (3) Specifically, we asked the District Court to what impact the accommodation of assess the potential impact on the prison the right would have on inmates, community of granting DeHart’s request prison personnel, and allocation of for a special diet comporting with his prison resources; and (4) whether religious beliefs in light of the prison obvious, easy alternatives exist. system’s experience with providing other religious diets. Id. at 58. We also asked We cautioned in DeHart II that this the lower court to reexamine whether approach “does not call for placing each DeHart’s religious dietary restrictions factor in one of two columns and tallying could be accommodated in such a way as a numerical result,” but that assessing the to impose only a de minimis cost on the reasonableness of a prison regulation Prison. Id. We noted that “the requires consideration of all the evidence defendants’ treatment of Jewish inmates, in the record. 227 F.3d at 59.6 in the absence of some further explanation, When we reversed the District Court’s casts substantial doubt on their assertion grant of summary judgment in DeHart II, that accommodating DeHart’s request we directed the lower court to reevaluate would result in significant problems for its findings on the second,7 third and the prison community.” Id. We are satisfied that the District Court on remand properly considered the impact on other interests in an efficient food system and inmates, guar ds an d th e prison in avoiding inmate jealousy were administration of providing of religious legitimate penological concerns. 227 diets for adherents of other faiths, and we F.3d at 53. Additionally, the Prison’s agree that the third Turner factor favors refusal to provide DeHart with a the Prison. While neither party separately religious diet bore some rational relation addressed the lower court’s findings on the to that interest. Id. fourth Turner factor in this appeal, we are 6 also satisfied with the District Court’s In DeHart II we explained that Turner was equally applicable to DeHart’s Free Exercise and Equal Protection claims, and that the analysis Buddhist beliefs through meditation, significantly overlapped. 227 F.3d at 61. correspondence with Buddhist religious organizations, and through the purchase 7 We instructed the lower court to of canvas, rather than leather, sneakers, reconsider its analysis of the second amongst other accommodations. See Turner factor on remand in light of our Magis. Rep. & Rec. on Mot. for Summ. decision to overrule Johnson. 227 F.3d J., at R.R. 19a-24a. DeHart has not at 54. The District Court subsequently appealed this finding, so that only the held that this factor also favored the third and fourth factors are at issue in Prison, as DeHart was able to express his this appeal. 7 analysis on that issue. DeHart has repeatedly affirmed the Avon diet, he has also continued to insist that he