Opinion ID: 660224
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Denial of Access to Religious Programs

Text: 9 Inmates retain the right to exercise their religious beliefs. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2404, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987); Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 322, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 1081, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). A prison regulation that infringes on an inmate's First Amendment rights is valid only if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 2261, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). A prison need make only reasonable efforts to afford the inmates an opportunity to practice their faith. Al-Alamin v. Gramley, 926 F.2d 680, 687 (7th Cir.1991). In providing this opportunity, the efforts of prison administrators, when assessed in their totality, must be evenhanded. Id. at 686. Thus, if segregation was proper, all the defendants would need to establish is that Alston had some opportunity to exercise his protected rights. Arsberry v. Sielaff, 586 F.2d 37, 44 (7th Cir.1978). 10 The complaint in this case alleged that inmates in the administrative segregation unit were denied access to religious programs. The complaint read, We are giveing no kind of religious program on this unit, They never come on the unit, for those progarms. The district court found this claim to be frivolous. In so finding, the court stated: 11 Here, the reasonableness of controlling the movement of prisoners in A/S Unit and of controlling its environment cannot reasonably be doubted. The entire premise of assignment to A/S Unit is a finding by prison authorities that such assignment is necessary to maintain the inmate's safety and security. This identifies the legitimate and compelling penological goal underlying the actions to which the plaintiffs object in this action. Those actions, as alleged by the plaintiffs, are not an exaggerated or unreasonable response to the violence which has been described. Prison officials must be free to take appropriate action to ensure the safety of inmates and corrections personnel. It would be entirely contrary to the principles expressed and repeated by the Supreme Court for a federal court to monitor or second-guess the decisions of prison administrators in determining whether and how long to impose a lockdown following repeated serious instances of inmate violence in a housing unit. 12