[ Footnote dos ] In fact, new Judge glosses along the Government’s report in its posttrial memorandum you to to have prisoners serving phrases, « this new limits towards the hands regarding individual possessions as well as serve the newest genuine reason for abuse. » All of us ex boyfriend rel. Wolfish v. Levi, 439 F. Supp. 114, 153 (SDNY 1977); Post-trial Memorandum to possess Respondents during the No. 75 Civ. 6000 (SDNY) 212 n., quoted ante, during the 561 n. 43. The fresh new Court’s treatment of this time illustrates the newest indifference in which they pursues this new intention query.

Schoonfield, 344 F

[ Footnote 3 ] For this reason, like, straight down courts enjoys held multiple coverage limitations unconstitutional. Elizabeth. g., Collins v. Supp. 257, 283 (Md. 1972) (warden censored magazine content critical off their management regarding prison); id., during the 278 (psychologically disrupted detainees shackled for the prison medical center); Prisoners regarding Milwaukee Condition Prison v. Petersen, 353 F. Supp. 1157, 1164 (ED Wis. 1973) (detainees simply for one or two users for every single letter; notice so you’re able to friends and you can household members of time and set regarding detainee’s next court appearance removed to the protection basis); You old boyfriend rel. Manicone v. Corso, 365 F. Supp. 576 (EDNY 1973) (newspapers banned because they you will interrupt inmates and build a fire hazard); Miller v.Continue Reading..