holding that a Buddhist prisoner stated a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when he alleged that he was placed in solitary confinement for proselytizing, while inmates of other religions were encouraged to participate in religious programs
How later courts described this case
- holding that a Buddhist prisoner stated a claim under the First and Fourteenth Amendments when he alleged that he was placed in solitary confinement for proselytizing, while inmates of other religions were encouraged to participate in religious programs
- holding that "persons in prison, like other individuals, have the right to petition the Government for redress of grievances which, of course, includes 'access of prisoners to the courts for the purpose of presenting their complaints.’ "
- concluding that prison officials did not have an affirmative obligation to provide inmate with clothing made with only one fiber
- finding no precedent that would require defendants to reimburse rabbis for their travel expenses when they constituted less than one percent of the prison population even though defendants reimbursed other clergy visiting the prison
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Mr. Chief Justice Burger,
concurring in the result.
I concur in the result reached even though the allegations of the complaint are on the borderline necessary to compel an evidentiary hearing. Some of the claims alleged are frivolous; others do not present justiciable issues. There cannot possibly be any constitutional or legal requirement that the government provide materials for every religion and sect practiced in this diverse country. At most, Buddhist materials cannot be denied to prisoners if someone offers to supply them.