Opinion ID: 498141
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Analyzing Prison Regulations

Text: 19 Following oral argument to this Court, the Supreme Court rendered two decisions directly relevant to this appeal. First, in Turner v. Safley, --- U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), the Court considered what level of scrutiny is appropriate in determining the constitutionality of prison regulations. The underlying lawsuit in Turner was a class action by Missouri inmates challenging two regulations promulgated by the Missouri Division of Corrections. The first regulation authorized correspondence  'with immediate family members who are inmates in other correctional institutions,' and ... correspondence between inmates 'concerning legal matters.'  Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2258. Other correspondence between inmates at different institutions, however, was permitted only on a discretionary basis. See id. The second regulation challenged by the Missouri inmates authorized inmate marriages only with the permission of the prison superintendent, and then only  'when there [we]re compelling reasons to do so.'  Id. Compelling was narrowly construed to justify marriages only in the event of a pregnancy or the birth of an illegitimate child. Id. In assessing the constitutionality of the challenged regulations, both the district court and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit employed a strict scrutiny standard of review. See id. at 2258. Under strict scrutiny, a prison regulation passes constitutional muster if it is the least restrictive means to accomplish a legitimate penological objective. See generally Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974). 20 The Turner Court defined its task as formulat[ing] a standard of review for prisoners' constitutional claims that is responsive both to the 'policy of judicial restraint regarding prisoner complaints and [to] the need to protect constitutional rights.'  107 S.Ct. at 2259 (quoting Martinez, 416 U.S. at 406, 94 S.Ct. at 1808). After reviewing its prior decisions concerning constitutional claims by prisoners, the Court rejected strict scrutiny as the appropriate standard of review. It concluded instead that, when a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. Id. 107 S.Ct. at 2261. In determining the reasonableness of a challenged regulation, Turner instructs reviewing courts to consider (1) the rational relationship between the regulation and the governmental interest put forward to justify it; (2) the existence of alternative means to exercise the asserted right; (3) the impact on prison resources of accommodating the asserted right; and (4) the existence of ready alternatives to accommodate the asserted right at de minimus cost to valid penological interests. 9 Id. at 2262. 21 Relying on Turner 's reasonableness test, the Supreme Court reversed this Court's decision in Shabazz v. O'Lone, 782 F.2d 416 (1986) (in banc ), which had held unconstitutional a prison regulation that effectively prevents certain Muslim inmates from participating in a weekly religious ceremony central to the Islamic faith. The Supreme Court first found that the Turner reasonableness analysis applies whether a challenged regulation effectively prohibit[s], rather than simply limit[s], a particular exercise of constitutional rights. O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. ----, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 2404 n. , 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987). Thus, applying that analysis, Estate of Shabazz concluded that the challenged regulation was reasonable. See 107 S.Ct. at 2405-07. 22 This appeal arises from the district court's order granting preliminary injunctive relief to MCCI inmates. [O]ur review of the grant or denial of preliminary injunctions is limited to determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, an error of law, or a clear mistake in the consideration of the proof. Moteles v. University of Pa., 730 F.2d 913, 918 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 855, 105 S.Ct. 179, 83 L.Ed.2d 114 (1984); accord Bill Blass, Ltd. v. Saz Corp., 751 F.2d 152, 154 (3d Cir.1984). On appeal, the County challenges paragraphs 1 and 5 of the district court's order and the underlying judgment as set forth in its memorandum opinion. 10 We shall consider these paragraphs in turn. In particular, we will determine whether the district court accurately applied the appropriate legal standard and properly concluded that MCCI inmates had demonstrated a reasonable probability of eventual success in the litigation. Kershner v. Mazurkiewicz, 670 F.2d 440, 443 (3d Cir.1982).