FIRST AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT ISSUES Thi

and Fourteenth Amendment) issues involved with the hypothetical

case involving Bob Smith and Hoot Hopper under the facts stated.

Neither inmate has a valid claim for denial of his right to

exercise freely his religion. Smith cannot sustain a claim that

he has been punished for his utterances. Many of the state

prison's actions are constitutional. The inmates' First and

Fourteenth amendment rights of access to the courts appear to

have been violated and procedural due process has been denied.

Although the First Amendment provides that Congress shall

not interfere with one's exercise of religion or abridge one's

free speech, the First Amendment is applicable to the states

through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.1

State action can take the form of the disciplinary and other

official actions of the state prison, as in this case.

What First Amendment Rights of Inmates Are Protectible?

The threshold question in this case is whether the

whether the "religion" proposed by Smith and Hopper is a religion

protected by the First Amendment. The answer is that it is not.

Under the recent Church of Scientology2 and prior case law, the

courts must determine whether the beliefs involved are sincerely

held, address fundamental issues, are comprehensive and involve

1Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940) (fre

. . .
n court, and by doing so, are exercising a First Amendment right, the right to petition for redress of grievances. An action will lie under Section 19838 by the inmates in this case if they can show that any of the prison's actions denied either of them "adequate, effective and meaningful" access to the courts. To prove a violation of his right of access to the courts, the prisoner must show that there has been a failure of prison officials to assist him in preparing and filing of legal papers or to provide him with adequate assistance in that regard from persons trained in the law, Alstein v. De Bruyn.9The inmate must also show that he has suffered some detriment as the result of any such conduct of state officials, such as an interruption or _______________ 6O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 107 S. Ct. 2400 (1987). 7Harry v. Smith, 561 N. Y. S. 2d 374, 148 Misc. 2d 629, (1990). 842 U.S.C. Section 1983. 9Alsten v. De Bruyn, C. A. (Ind.) 1994, 13 F. 3d 36. See also Smith v. Maschner, C. A. (Kan.) 1990, 899 F. 2d 1940. delay of the inmate's pending or intended litigation. A 1993 federal case holds that the "Constitution guarantees access to the courts, no
. . .

Some common words found in the essay are:
Maschner Kan, Supreme Court, Justice Marshall, Retaliation Prison, Saffley Court, Hoot Hopper, Orapello Ackerman, Church Scientology2, Green White3, Review Winter, due process, access courts, free speech, supreme court, failure prison, procedural due process, section 1983, procedural due, certiorari denied 103, amendment rights, insider disciplinary, substantive due process, prison's actions, due process rights, denied 103 ct,
Approximate Word count = 1653
Approximate Pages = 7 (250 words per page)