Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Charles McCorkle v. W.E. Johnson, Warden, Joseph Kolb, Chaplain, Freddie v. Smith, Commissioner, 881 F.2d 993, 11th Cir. (1989)
Charles McCorkle v. W.E. Johnson, Warden, Joseph Kolb, Chaplain, Freddie v. Smith, Commissioner, 881 F.2d 993, 11th Cir. (1989)
Charles McCorkle v. W.E. Johnson, Warden, Joseph Kolb, Chaplain, Freddie v. Smith, Commissioner, 881 F.2d 993, 11th Cir. (1989)
2d 993
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1989.
P. David Bjurberg, David Christy, and Beth Jackson Hughes, Asst. Attys.
Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Alabama.
Before VANCE, JOHNSON and CLARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
APPENDIX
2In The United States District Court For The Southern
District of Alabama Southern Division
3Charles McCorkle,
4Plaintiff,
5vs.
Charles McCorkle, a state prisoner confined in the Holman facility, filed this
complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 seeking redress for the deprivation
of his First Amendment right to freely exercise his chosen religion. The
defendants are prison officials who allegedly impinged on the plaintiff's
practice of the Satanic "religion" by denying plaintiff's request for access to
certain Satanic books and articles, including The Satanic Bible, The Satanic
Book of Rituals, and a Satanic medallion. Their defense is three-fold: (1)
Satanism is not a religion entitled to First Amendment protection; (2) assuming
it is a religion, the plaintiff is not a sincere believer in Satanism; and (3) access
to the requested books and medallion would pose a threat to the security of the
prison. The Magistrate held that all three defenses were valid and
recommended that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants.
10
11
There are several factors which are relevant in determining the reasonableness
11
of this policy. First, there must be a "valid, rational connection" between the
prison restriction and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify
it. Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2262 (quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U.S. 576, 104
S.Ct. 3227, 3232, 82 L.Ed.2d 438 (1984)). The restriction at issue here clearly
meets this standard. The prohibition on Satanic materials such as those
requested by the plaintiff is justified by the defendants' concern for institutional
security and order. It is an informed and measured response to the violence
inherent in Satan worship, and to the potential disorder that it might cause
within the prison.
12
13
Candles, a common item in many religious ceremonies, are also used in the
Satanic rituals. However, the candles preferred by the plaintiff and other
Satanists are not made of wax or paraffin; instead, they are made from the fat
of unbaptized infants.
14
15
16
Clearly, practices such as those described above, and the beliefs that encourage
them, cannot be tolerated in a prison environment since they pose security
threats and are directly contrary to the goals of the institution. Allowing the
plaintiff access to the requested books and medallion would only encourage
such behavior. Thus, it cannot be said that the policy in question is arbitrary;
rather, it is logically connected to the governmental interests asserted.
18
19
See Turner, 107 S.Ct. at 2263, (citing Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 94 S.Ct.
2800, 2806, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974)).
20
21
22
Emmett R. Cox
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE
SITTING BY DESIGNATION