Proper methodology for applying Turner standard for constitutional infringements in prison context

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Petitioner is an artist currently in the custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC). He commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Respondents (DOC officials) alleging violations by Respondents, who , through policy and practice overly restricted Petitioner’s ability to create and view art. This case falls under the Reasonable Relationship Standard (“The Standard” or “Turner analysis”) for review of Constitutional infringements in the prison context. Broadly limned, the question is as to what is the proper methodology of applying the standard, and if the courts below did so; Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(a) the Court should construe that Prow means to include fairly within this all factors of analysis on all points. Supreme Court rule 14 (1)(a) prescribes that questions must be presented concisely and without unnecessary detail, but also prescribes that any question not presented will not be considered. Petitioner is pro se, and due to the lower courts’ almost complete ignoring of his arguments, has difficulty complying with both rules. Petitioner's best effort is to be very concise, relying on the Court to be liberal in construing that “fairly included therein” are all individual points of analysis performed, incorrectly performed, or not at all performed under The Standard by the courts below, and append materials the Court may wish for elaboration. 2 In addition to the overarching issue of The Standard, the following specific questions are presented for review. Did the District Court, and Eighth Circuit by unelaborated affirmance, err by: 1. Not performing overbreadth analysis 2. Not performing as-applied analysis 3. Not ruling there is a blanket ban in effect on some genres of art 4. Not giving treatment to the issue raised that there is a blanket ban in effect, on any creation of an image with content of nudity . 5. Not considering Prow’s arguments as movant but only those responsive to respondents’ 6. Not analyzing the specific challenges petitioner made to the multiple specific restrictions encompassed by the policies . 7. Not considering expert testimony provided by petitioner 8. Not reviewing all of petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation (R&R) 9. Not making findings of fact in the light most favorable to the non-moving party on disputed facts, or alternatively not granting summary judgment, most notably over the dispute over the actual manner policies were applied, and the true intent of the restrictions 10. Not considering alternative policies petitioner put forth of which respondents did not refute (both hobby craft and contraband) the de minimis nature 11. Not reviewing physical evidence submitted by petitioner 3 12. Not granting the declaratory relief petitioner sought when respondents admitted to the point of declaration being sought (rendering Prow nonprevailing when he nonetheless achieved some of the relief sought) 13. Not giving treatment to the fact that staff are trained to apply policy different than respondents explain it is applied ; 14. Not analyzing petitioner's argument that respondents’ so-called “featuring” exception for certain nudity is invalid because, inter alia, “features” is not even defined in policy 15. Not ruling the specific hobby craft restrictions which Prow raised as invalid but which Respondents did not specifically refute 16. Disregarding expert testimony that the specific hobby craft restrictions challenged caused free speech infringement with no alternative means for expressing the right 17. Ruling de minimis alternatives to the hobby craft policy don’t exist, when petitioner in fact proffered multiple alternatives which the respondents did not refute as not being de minimis and have been held as de minimis by other courts 4 fi PARTIES Petitioner, Matthew Prow (“Prow’”), is plaintiff and-appellant. Prow is an artist and prisoner in the custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (“DO