Fromer v. Scully
| Decision Date | 06 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 84 Civ. 5612 (CES).,84 Civ. 5612 (CES). |
| Citation | 693 F. Supp. 1536 |
| Parties | Yevgen FROMER, Plaintiff, v. Charles J. SCULLY, Harold J. Smith, Walter Kelly, Everett W. Jones, Thomas A. Coughlin III, and Hirshel Jaffe, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Rosenman & Colin, New York City by Joel E. Sternman, for plaintiff.
Attorney General of the State of New York, New York City by Martha O. Shoemaker, for defendants.
Plaintiff Yevgen Fromer seeks reinstatement of this Court's January 27, 1987 judgment granting him declaratory relief and an injunction against enforcement of Directive # 4914 of the New York State Department of Correctional Services ("DOCS"). Fromer v. Scully, 649 F.Supp. 512 (S.D.N.Y.1986), aff'd, 817 F.2d 227 (2d Cir.), vacated and remanded, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S.Ct. 254, 98 L.Ed.2d 211 (1987). On October 19, 1987, the Supreme Court vacated that judgment and remanded the case for further consideration in light of O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) and Turner v. Safley, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987). For the reasons that follow, we find on further consideration that Directive # 4914 is unconstitutional as applied to Fromer, and we therefore reinstate the judgment insofar as it requires the expungement from Fromer's record of all references to violations of that Directive.
The facts of this case are set forth in detail in this Court's November 25, 1986 opinion, Fromer v. Scully, 649 F.Supp. 512 (S.D.N.Y.1986), familiarity with which is assumed. Only a brief recitation of the prior proceedings is warranted here.
In August 1984, plaintiff Fromer, then an inmate in the custody of DOCS, filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging, inter alia, deprivation of his first amendment right to free exercise of religion. Following appointment of counsel, Fromer filed an amended complaint, also under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, containing nine claims. The ninth claim alleges that DOCS Directive # 4914, which, among other things, requires inmates to shave or trim their beards to a length of no more than one inch, violates Fromer's right to religious freedom and is unconstitutional as applied to him.1 Fromer, an Orthodox Jew, claims that his religious beliefs prohibit him from shaving or trimming his facial hair. Fromer's beard claim was eventually severed from the rest of his complaint and set for trial in late 1985.2
After a six-day, non-jury trial, this Court found that Fromer's refusal to trim his beard was based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and that that portion of Directive # 4914 requiring inmates to trim their beards to one inch in length was unconstitutional as applied to Fromer. 649 F.Supp. at 521. During the trial, defendants offered testimony that the one-inch limit on inmates' beards was necessitated by the governmental interests in identification of inmates, control of contraband, avoidance of confrontations, fairness, and personal safety and hygiene. 649 F.Supp. at 519. In evaluating these proffered justifications, we applied the third and most stringent of the three standards of review articulated in Wali v. Coughlin, 754 F.2d 1015 (2d Cir. 1985).3 We concluded that while the stated governmental interests were "unquestionably important," defendants "have not established that the beard regulation is no greater than necessary to effectuate the governmental interests involved." 649 F.Supp. at 519. We thus declared the beard length provision of Directive # 4914 unconstitutional as applied to Fromer, and enjoined defendants from shortening Fromer's beard, from ordering him to shorten it, and from punishing Fromer for refusing to shorten it. We also ordered the restoration of any good time credits and other privileges and benefits Fromer lost because of his past refusals to shorten his beard, as well as the expungement from Fromer's record of all references to disciplinary proceedings held because of violations of Directive # 4914. Id. at 521-22.
In an opinion dated April 24, 1987, the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of this Court, holding that we correctly applied the third Wali standard of review to the facts of this case. Fromer v. Scully, 817 F.2d 227, 232 (2d Cir.1987). On October 19, 1987, the Supreme Court granted defendants' petition for certiorari in order to vacate the Second Circuit's judgment and remand for further consideration in light of O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987) and Turner v. Safley, ___ U.S. ___, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987), two cases decided the previous term which establish a uniform standard for reviewing alleged violations of prisoners' rights. In O'Lone and Turner, the Supreme Court expressly rejected Wali's tripartite standard of review in favor of a uniform "reasonableness" standard. O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2404, n. **; Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2261. By order dated November 24, 1987, the Second Circuit remanded the case to this Court for further consideration in accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate. 837 F.2d 1086.
The Supreme Court in O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 107 S.Ct. 2400 (1987) and Turner v. Safley, 107 S.Ct. 2254 (1987) set out to formulate a standard of review for prisoners' constitutional claims that would balance the need to protect prisoners' rights with the state's interest in pursuing valid penological objectives. O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2404; Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2259. In developing such a standard, the Court was guided by two overarching principles.
First, "prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the Constitution." Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2259. "Indeed, ... the Supreme Court has insisted that prisoners be accorded those rights not fundamentally inconsistent with imprisonment itself or incompatible with the objectives of incarceration." Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517, 523, 104 S.Ct. 3194, 3198, 82 L.Ed.2d 393 (1984). Basic first amendment rights are not among those that a prisoner sheds "at the prison gate." Procunier v. Martinez, 416 U.S. 396, 422, 94 S.Ct. 1800, 1815, 40 L.Ed.2d 224 (1974) (Marshall, J., concurring). Inmates clearly retain their first amendment right to freely exercise their religion. O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2404; Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972) (per curiam).
Second, "lawful incarceration brings about the necessary withdrawal or limitation of many privileges and rights, a retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system." Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 1060, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). Restrictions on prisoners' exercise of constitutional rights "arise both from the fact of incarceration and from valid penological objectives — including deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners, and institutional security." O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2404 ().
The Supreme Court in O'Lone and Turner sought to derive a uniform standard for reviewing prisoner's claims that would balance the above principles while ensuring that courts give appropriate deference to the considered judgments of prison administrators "who are actually charged with and trained in the running of the particular institution." Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 562, 99 S.Ct. 1861, 1886, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979); see O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2402; Turner, 107 S.Ct. 2260. After reviewing its prior decisions concerning constitutional claims by prisoners, the Court announced the following standard of review: "When a prison regulation impinges on inmates' constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests." Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2261; O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2404.
In evaluating the reasonableness of a challenged regulation, Turner instructs reviewing courts to consider the following four factors: (1) the existence of a "valid, rational connection" between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interests put forward to justify it; (2) the existence of alternative means of exercising the asserted right; (3) the impact that accommodation of the asserted right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources; and (4) the existence of "ready alternatives" to accommodate the asserted right at "de minimis" cost to the valid penological interests. Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2262.
Applying the four-factor analysis, the Court in Turner upheld a Missouri regulation restricting correspondence between inmates at different institutions. First, the Court found that there was a growing problem of prison gangs which was fostered through inmate-to-inmate correspondence, and that limiting such correspondence was thus rationally related to the goal of eliminating gang activity. 107 S.Ct. at 2263. Second, the Court found that the restriction only barred communication with a specific class of individuals, and thus left open alternative means of expression. Id. Third, the Court found that continued exercise of the right to communicate with other inmates would have a great impact on others within the prison system insofar as such communication threatens the "core functions of prison administration, maintaining safety and internal security." Id. Finally, the Court found that there were no ready alternatives to the challenged regulation because the only other option, monitoring all inmate-to-inmate correspondence, would impose a tremendous burden on the system and would run the risk of missing dangerous communications. Id. at 2263-64.
The Turner Court at the same time found unconstitutional a different Missouri prison regulation that restricted the right of inmates to marry. The Court concluded that the marriage regulation was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fromer v. Scully, 717
...Fromer v. Scully, 837 F.2d 1086 (2d Cir.1987). On remand, the district court reaffirmed its prior decision. Fromer v. Scully, 693 F.Supp. 1536 (S.D.N.Y.1988) ("Fromer III "). We now reverse on the ground that the district court misapplied O'Lone and Because the detailed facts are reported i......