Opinion
February 11, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Donohue, J.).
Petitioner, an inmate at Woodbourne Correctional Facility in Sullivan County, filed a grievance seeking access to materials published by the Five Percenters, an unauthorized organization that engages in gang-related activity both inside and outside of the facility. Following the denial of the grievance and an unsuccessful administrative appeal, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding contending that the blanket prohibition against inmate possession of materials relating to the Five Percenters is arbitrary and that respondent's policy of denying inmates access to such materials violates the 1st Amendment. Supreme Court rejected petitioner's arguments and dismissed the petition, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. Initially, we reject petitioner's contention that the policy banning all materials relating to the Five Percenters is arbitrary and capricious because it violates Department of Correctional Services Directive No. 4572, which establishes a procedure for individually screening publications and redacting out any objectionable content prior to providing them to the inmate. The purpose of the directive is to encourage inmates to read publications which do not promote conduct that may be disruptive to the orderly operation of the facility (see, DOCS Directive No. 4572). Inasmuch as respondent's regulations designate materials generated by unauthorized organizations such as the Five Percenters as contraband (see, 7 NYCRR 270.2 [b] [6] [iii]; [14] [xiv]), the determination to exclude such materials from the publication review process does not contravene the directive's purpose. Moreover, the threat to facility security created by unauthorized organizations engaged in gang-related activities provides a valid basis for respondent's effort to discourage inmates from associating with such organizations and reading their publications. Accordingly, we agree with Supreme Court that respondent's determination prohibiting materials relating to the Five Percenters without first reviewing them pursuant to the directive is supported by a rational basis (cf., Matter of Gonzalez v. Wronski, 247 A.D.2d 767).
Finally, we do not find that respondent's determination violates petitioner's 1st Amendment rights inasmuch as it is reasonably related to the legitimate penological interest of maintaining prison security (see, Matter of Hili v. Coombe, 236 A.D.2d 756, appeal dismissed, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 829, cert. denied sub nom. Hili v. Goord, 522 U.S. 884; Matter of Germenis v. Coughlin, 232 A.D.2d 738, 740; Matter of Quartararo v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 222 A.D.2d 758, appeal dismissed 87 N.Y.2d 967). We have examined petitioner's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.
Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.