Is a total ban on the possession of religious medallions an exaggerated response?

I begin by observing that it is undisputed that practitioners of other religious faiths may possess and wear religious medallions while incarcerated in the SHU.²⁵ Thus to some degree this issue implicates questions of equal treatment of the religious claims of plaintiff vis-a-vis other more conventional practitioners. See Cruz v. Beto, 405 U.S. 319, 92 S.Ct. 1079, 31 L.Ed.2d 263 (1972). More to the point, however, application of the four-fold test demonstrates the impropriety of a total ban. The question of the burden on prison personnel which may be attendant upon requiring that the sacks be opened for inspection may be made de minimis by limiting the number of ties which may be possessed. In like manner, limiting the tensile strength of the string which may be used minimizes the danger of the tie being used as a weapon. Finally, requiring that the tie be kept in the inmate's cell minimizes potential for conflict between staff, and the ripple effect as to other prisoners.

Under the circumstances, the court believes that a total ban is an exaggerated response and accordingly will require defendants to provide regulations permitting but regulating the possession of tobacco ties. While it is true that prison officials do not "bear the burden of disproving the availability of alternatives," Standing Deer v. Carlson, 831 F.2d at 1529, the "availability of accommodations is relevant

[675 F. Supp. 582]

to the reasonableness inquiry." O'Lone, 107 S.Ct. at 2405.

[675 F. Supp. 582]