Opinion ID: 2597427
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Alternative means of exercising the right remain

Text: The second factor relevant in determining the reasonableness of a prison restriction, as Pell shows, is whether there are alternative means of exercising the right that remain open to the inmates. Turner, 482 U.S. at 90. Where `other avenues' remain available for the exercise of the asserted right, see Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners' Union, [433 U.S. at 131], courts should be particularly conscious of the `measure of judicial deference owed to corrections officials . . . in gauging the validity of the regulation.' 482 U.S. at 90 (quoting Pell, 417 U.S. at 827). Since the Court of Appeals reversed the district court on the first Turner factor  Compliance with the first factor is indispensable as a matter of law to a holding that the ban is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests  it held that it need not address the remaining three. See 31 Kan. App. 2d at 974. Respondents suggested several ways that petitioners can have access to the information in these periodicals. First, they claimed the inmates could purchase the subscriptions by having the gifter send money for the subscription to the inmate's account so that the inmate can purchase the subscription himself through an SPO. Second, the inmates have available publications in the library. Third, if they reach their limit of $30 per month, they may ask the warden in accordance with IMP 11-101(VI)(B)(2)(d) to waive that limit. The respondents also argue that they are not totally suppressing anything, but rather restricting the amount of subscriptions to newspapers and magazines the inmates receive. Within those parameters, the inmates generally may choose freely. Petitioners argue that these alternatives fail because some subscriptions cost more than $30 per month and because some inmates may not have the funds to purchase the subscriptions. They also claim that access to the library publications is not a means of exercising their rights; they contend that inmates have difficulty signing up for library time and that the library lacks the full range of publications they desire. Petitioners further argue that LCF's stated concerns could be met without a blanket prohibition on gift subscriptions. Specifically, they suggest that the prison could simply limit the number of publications an inmate could receive based on his incentive level. For example, if an inmate were at the lowest level, perhaps they would be able to receive only one or two gift subscriptions . . . whereas inmates on the upper levels would be able to receive increased gift subscriptions. The district court found that the prison's first alternative of having inmates purchasing subscriptions was limited because some inmates may not have funds available and because of the $30 monthly limit on spending. The district court found, however, that the inmates' needs were being met through the publications in the library. Additionally, the court found that inmates could petition the warden for an exemption to the $30 spending limit. Accordingly, it found that the respondents have provided alternative methods for the inmates to receive publications, and they were consistent with the legitimate penological interest of rehabilitation that is the focus of IMPP 11-101. As stated by the district court, there are alternative means for inmates to exercise their First Amendment rights. Inmates at Levels II and III can purchase the magazines and newspapers themselves, up to $30 per month. To make purchases that exceed those limits, inmates may petition the warden for an exemption. Furthermore, all inmates can access magazines and magazines from the library. Six inmates from each of the nine cellhouses are allowed to sign up for one of two library periods each day, for a total of 108 inmates per day. Although the library does not carry every magazine and newspaper that is published, inmates are encouraged to request that the library carry particular publications, and, according to Phelps, apparently those requested have been added. An in-house review of the actual use of the libraries revealed that often the sign-up sheets for library use were not full. Substantial competent evidence supports the district court's finding that access to the prison library was a legitimate alternative method consistent with the goals of rehabilitation and security. As the Supreme Court said in Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. at 417: As has already been made clear in Turner and O'Lone, `the right' in question must be viewed sensibly and expansively. The Court in Turner did not require that prisoners be afforded other means of communicating with inmates at other institutions, [citation omitted], nor did it in O'Lone require that there be alternative means of attending the Jumu'ah religious ceremony [citation omitted]. Rather, it held in Turner that it was sufficient if other means of expression (not necessarily other means of communicating with inmates in other prisons) remained available, and in O'Lone if prisoners were permitted to participate in other Muslim religious ceremonies. As the regulations at issue in the present case permit a broad range of publications to be sent, received, and read, this factor is clearly satisfied.