Thomas Ash-Bey v. Harry Fauntleroy, Lt.

1 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-1865
THOMAS ASH-BEY,
Appellant
v.
HARRY FAUNTLEROY, LT.; SALVATORE LOPRESTI, CAPT.; CHAPLAIN
AZIZ; JOSE CORDERO, COUNSELOR; THOMAS, OFFICER; RODRIGUEZ,
OFFICER, ALL OF F.C.I. FORT DIX
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(Dist. Court No. 98-cv-01447)
District Court Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2002
Before: ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,1 Senior District Judge
(Opinion Filed: January 30, 2002)

-- 1 of 6 --

2
MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT
PER CURIAM:
Because we write for the parties only, the background of the case need not
be set out. We reject the appellant’s argument that the prison regulations at issue in this
case violate the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because the prison
restrictions on the wearing of certain apparel were reasonably related to legitimate
penological interests, we affirm the District Court’s summary judgment in favor of the
defendants.
Although prisoners’ personal liberties are certainly curtailed during
incarceration, the Supreme Court has made it clear that prisoners “do not forfeit all
constitutional protections by reason of their conviction and confinement in prison.”
DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 50 (3d Cir. 2000) (quoting Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520,
545 (1979)). “Inmates clearly retain protections afforded by the First Amendment, . . .
including its directive that no law shall prohibit the free exercise of religion.” Id.
(quoting O’Lone v. Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 348 (1987) (citations omitted)). However,
certain restrictions on inmates’ exercise of these constitutional rights are justified by the
valid penological objectives of deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners, and
institutional security. See id. at 50-51.
In Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987), the Supreme Court concluded that
“when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is

-- 2 of 6 --

3
valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Id. at 89. Turner
counsels consideration of the following four factors:
“First, there must be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison
regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it”
and this connection must not be “so remote as to render the policy arbitrary
or irrational.” Second, a court must consider whether inmates retain
alternative means of exercising the circumscribed right. Third, a court must
take into account the costs that accommodating the right would impose on
other inmates, guards, and prison resources generally. And fourth, a court
must consider whether there are alternatives to the regulation that “fully
accommodate[] the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological
interests.”
DeHart, 227 F.3d at 51 (quoting Waterman v. Farmer, 183 F.3d 208, 213 (3d Cir. 1999)
(internal citations omitted)). The District Court correctly applied Turner and concluded
that the regulations at issue did not violate the First Amendment.
We also agree with the District Court that, assuming for the sake of
argument that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb through
2000bb-4, applies, the record does not show that the regulations impose a “substantial
burden” on religious exercise.
We have considered all of the defendants’ arguments and see no basis for
reversal. The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed.

-- 3 of 6 --

4
TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT:
Kindly file the foregoing Opinion.
Circuit Judge

-- 4 of 6 --

2 The Honorable William W Schwarzer, Senior District Judge for the
Northern District of California, sitting by designation.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 01-1865
THOMAS ASH-BEY,
Appellant
v.
HARRY FAUNTLEROY, LT.; SALVATORE LOPRESTI, CAPT.; CHAPLAIN
AZIZ; JOSE CORDERO, COUNSELOR; THOMAS, OFFICER; RODRIGUEZ,
OFFICER, ALL OF F.C.I. FORT DIX
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
(Dist. Court No. 98-cv-01447)
District Court Judge: Honorable Jerome B. Simandle
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
January 17, 2002
Before: ALITO and ROTH, Circuit Judges, and SCHWARZER,2 Senior District Judge
(Opinion Filed: )
JUDGMENT
This cause came to be heard on the record from the United States District

-- 5 of 6 --

Court for the District of New Jersey and was submitted under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
on January 17, 2002.
After review and consideration of all contentions raised by the appellant, it
is hereby ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the judgment of the District Court entered on
March 8, 2001, be and is hereby affirmed, all in accordance with the opinion of this
Court.
ATTEST:
Clerk
DATED:

-- 6 of 6 --