WPCy 3[rȢ`: Y+ F1c|W3[rzptM-x9'jllQ<҅Ιx'&$b.~" s;pFڝ䜷Pn wo3k+Wt X6Zo,|刲 0l׸vRP(A=; PK\Q?^LR8#`t)PybZe>lۗNУp8)j_pF7,do/HNU@ % 0~ 0xP 0k 0k3 0 0~C 0 0 0 0= 0? 0)T 0<} 0N 0a 0h 0B 0 0 0n 05 0 0 0 0z; 0 n 0= 0F 0P 1R 0 1 0!O" 0C%E(& 0&*& 0P& 0& 0d' 08'U&)U:>) 08x) 0>* 08+ 0>&- 0>d. 0/ 0x60 00 0x21 0x1 0x"2 0x2 03 04 0x5 05 06 07 08 09 0: 0; 0< 0= 0|> 0|T? 0? 0|@ 0TA 0\B 0dCU:)E 0cE 0]F 0aG 0DG 0@%I 0leJ 0HJU:L 0@SLU:M 06M 0JO 0DMP 0fQ 0<Q 0B3S 0uTUU 0UUPW 0hW 01X 0X 0Y 0Z 0^[ 0z'\ 0\ 0j] 03^ 0_ 0_ 0` 0a 0a 04bULc 0dc 0xd 0Ee 0|f 0Tfgh 0Ii 0CjQj 0vnm 1mnn\ n 0(w Bx#!4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_K 8Right Par 2Right Par 2  >4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  L6Document 3Document 3        P_K 8Right Par 3Right Par 3  >4X` P  hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_K 8Right Par 4Right Par 4  >4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_K 8Right Par 5Right Par 5  >4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_K 8Right Par 6Right Par 6  >4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_K 8Right Par 7Right Par 7  >4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_K 8Right Par 8Right Par 8  >4X` hp x (#>        5+ ` hp x (#5  LhW 6Document 1Document 1&    ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5'    P_N 8Technical 5Technical 5  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_N 8Technical 6Technical 6  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  P8Technical 2Technical 2        P8Technical 3Technical 3        P_N 8Technical 4Technical 4  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  P8Technical 1Technical 1        P_N 8Technical 7Technical 7  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  P_N 8Technical 8Technical 8  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  @ 0HeadingHeading  8.` hp x (#8ON:6X9`("Courier NewTTO        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO5+ ` hp x (#5  :6X9`("Courier NewTTH\K 4Right ParRight Par  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  L_N 6SubheadingSubheading  ;1X` hp x (#;        5+ ` hp x (#5  T:Envelope StyEnvelope Sty        <.indentindentO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO          XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO8,titletitleON:6X9`("Courier NewTTO          XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO4*headhead          @0subheadsubhead&&&OV96X9`("Courier NewTTO          XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO96X9`("Courier NewTTD~~2footnotefootnoteOX86X9`("Courier NewTTO        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO86X9`("Courier NewTT4*citeciteO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTOH4underlineunderlineO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO<.subsubsubsubO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO          XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO4*boldbold        4*TINYTINYOX86X9`("Courier NewTTO          XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO@0addressaddressOX86X9`("Courier NewTTO        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO8_,equalequal-`"2`-        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO"2`H 4MACNormalMACNormal  >4X` hp x (#>XXX-b#2`-        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO5+ ` hp x (#5  #2`8;K ,toc 1toc 1  !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8;K ,toc 2toc 2  ` !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8>K ,toc 3toc 3  ` !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8>K ,toc 4toc 4   !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8>K ,toc 5toc 5  h!(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8;K ,toc 6toc 6  !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8! ,toc 7toc 7            8;K ,toc 8toc 8  !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  8;K ,toc 9toc 9  !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  @>K 0index 1index 1  ` !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  @;K 0index 2index 2  ` !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  08K (toatoa   !(#        5+ ` hp x (#5  @! 0captioncaption            ^:_Equation Ca_Equation Caption        `:footnote reffootnote reference        8_,covercover&&&-s\ `-        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO\ `4_*namename&&&-s\ `-        XXXO.<6X9`("Courier NewTTO<;K .headerheader   (#        5+ ` hp x (#5  <;K .footerfooter   (#        5+ ` hp x (#5  P8page numberpage number        RV6LetterheadLetter format4y =   р  TRX3'X3' Letter3' Letter3'T4*X` X* ] &(  XXXPage  1  Vo2EnvelopeEnvelope settings#d# ,      ($      }ZN$Ӏ  1    _ԀItispossiblethattheSupremeCourtwillholdinUniversityofAlabamaBoardof  Trusteesv._Garrett_thatTitleIIoftheADAisunconstitutionalasappliedtotheStates.Inthat  event,prisonerswith_disabities_ԀcouldstillbringdiscriminationclaimsundertheRehabilitationAct,andmostofthepointsmadeinthismemorandumwouldremainvalid.PrisonersmightalsostillbeabletoseekinjunctivereliefundertheADApursuanttothedoctrinesetforthin p  ExParteYoung.ButseeWalkerv.Snyder,213F.3d344(7thCir.2000).(-!2ZN$ !  Ӏ  0    3sy2Right-Aligned Paragraph NumbersI.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)#|w * `(CG TimesScalableXXw P7XP%2`imesScalableXXX2PQXP<6X9`("Courier NewTTleXXx6X@DQX@%2`ier NewTTle&&Q2PQ&P%2`ier NewTTleI2PQP%2`ier NewTTleB2PQP:6X9`("Courier NewTTle6X@DQ@<6X9`("Courier NewTTleZ6X@DQ@:6X9`("Courier NewTTle6X@DQ@96X9`("Courier NewTTle& i6X@DQ&@86X9`("Courier NewTTlewK6X@DQ@"2`ier NewTTle>2PQP#2`ier NewTTleX?T2PQXP\ `ier NewTTle& F\  P6Q&P($ dHP LaserJet III (2nd Floor),,,,,,0vj -c UE{E{ D U Ue -pSHYU !  _8XXdd8  р AGUIDETOLITIGATIONUNDERTHEAMERICANSWITHDISABILITIES    ACTINPRISONSANDJAILS   JamesR._Pingeon_CenterforPublicRepresentationnoho,NohoNorthampton,MassaMassachusetts  ̀AlthoughtheSupremeCourtheldinPennsylvaniaDept.ofCorrectionsv._Yeskey_,524U.S. @  206(1998)thattheAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct("ADA")appliestoprisonsandjails,peoplewithdisabilitiesincorrectionalfacilitiesstillfacetremendousobstaclesintheireffortstoachievefairandequaltreatment.Sincetheseinstitutionscontrolvirtuallyeveryaspectofthelivesoftheindividualswhomustinhabitthem,thetypesofbarriersanddiscriminationtheyfacearevariedandpervasive.Seee.g.,_Montez_Ԁv._Romer_,32_F.Supp_.2d1235(_D.Colo_.1999)(prisonerswith @  awiderangeofdisabilities,includingmobility,hearing,andvisionimpairments,anddiabetes,statedcognizableclaimsundertheADAandRehabilitationActbecausetheyallegedimpermissiblearchitecturalbarrierswhichcreate"imminentrisksofserousinjury,"andbecauseprisonofficialsrefusedtomakeaccommodationstoallowthemtouselawlibraries,visitingareas,yardareas,laundryfacilities,dininghalls,vocationaltraining,recreationalfacilities,bathingandrestroomfacilities,medicalclinics.Theywerealsoexcludedfromprisonemploymentandrehabilitationservicessolelyonthebasisoftheirdisabilities).Othercasesrecitesimilarproblems.Forexample,paraplegicinmatesarecommonlyhousedincellblockswithinaccessibletoiletsandshowers.See_LaFaut_Ԁv.Smith,839F.2d387(4thCir.1987).Correctionalofficialsmaytake ` awaywheelchairsfrominmateswithmobilityimpairments.See_Beckford_Ԁv.Irvin,49_F.Supp_.2d P 170(W.D.N.Y.).Inmateswithvisionimpairmentshavenoreaderstohelpthemdecipherprisonrulesandregulations.Inmateswithhearingimpairmentsmayhavetoattendadministrativehearingsorappearbeforetheparoleboardwithoutsignlanguageinterpreters.Duffyv._Riveland_,  p 98F.3d447(9thCir.1996);Clarksonv._Coughlin_,898F.Supp.1019(_S.D.N.Y._Ԁ1995).Some ` prisonsystemssegregateinmateswhoareHIVpositivefromthegeneralprisonpopulationanddenythemequalaccesstorehabilitativeprograms.See_Onishea_Ԁv.Hopper,171F.3d1289(11th @ Cir.1999)(enbanc).Andinmateswithmentalillnessordevelopmentaldisabilitiesfacearangeofdiscriminatorypractices,includingpunishmentforconducttheycannotcontrolresultinginsolitaryconfinementforyearsatatime.SeeC.F.v._Terhune_67_F.Supp_.2d.401(_D.N.J._Ԁ1999); ! Madridv.Gomez,889_F.Supp_.1146(N.D.Cal.1995). "  ЀAlthoughtheseproblemscanoftenbeaddressedbytheADA,litigationintheuniqueenvironmentofprisonsandjailshasmorethanthenormalshareofpitfallsanddifficulties.ThismemorandumattemptstoprovidepracticalguidancetoADAlitigationinthecorrectionalsettingbydiscussingsomeofthespecialrulesthatapplytoprisonerlitigation,andsomeoftherestrictivewaysinwhichthecourtshaveinterpretedtheADAintheprisoncontext.| {  1       `'"% Ї I.ThePrisonLitigationReformACT("_PLRA_")     ЀThe_PLRA_Ԁwasenactedin1996ostensiblytocurtailfrivolousprisonerlitigation,buthasalsohadtheeffectofmakingitmuchmoredifficultforinmatestobringmeritoriousclaims.Specifically,the_PLRA_ԀimposesanumberofobstaclesandlimitationsthatmustbekeptinmindwheneverasuitisfiledonbehalfofaninmateundertheADA,oranyotherfederalstatuteorConstitutionalprovision. a)FilingFees 󀄀Underthe_PLRA_,indigentprisonersarenolongerexcusedfrompayingafiling  p  feeinfederalcourt.Theymustnowsubmitacertifiedstatementoftheirprisonaccountfortheprecedingsixmonths,andthenpaytheentirefilingfee,albeitininstallments,inaccordancewithacomplicatedformulasetforthintheAct.28U.S.C.1915(b)(12).Formerprisoners,however,arenotsubjecttothefilingfeeprovisions,evenifthecomplaintconcernsmattersthattookplacewhiletheywereincarcerated.Robbinsv._Switzer_,104F.3d895,897(7thCir.1997).   Further,personsundercivilcommitmentarenottreatedasprisoners,eveniftheyareheldinafacilityrunbyastatecorrectionalagency.SeeKingv._Greenblatt_,53_F.Supp_.2d117,13839  (D.Mass.1999);SeealsoPagev.Torrey,201F.3d1136,113940(9thCir.2000).   b)ExhaustionofAdministrativeRemedies 󀀄The_PLRA_Ԁ   requiresinmatesfirsttopursueall  challenges"withrespecttoprisonconditions"throughthehighestlevelofthe"available"administrativeprocedurespriortofilingasuitundertheADAoranyotherFederallaw.42U.S.C.1997e(d)(2).Thereisconsiderabledisagreementamongthecourtsastowhetheranadministrativeremedyis"available."Forexample,manycourtsholdthataninmatemustutilizetheprisongrievanceproceduresbeforefilingadamageactioneventhoughthegrievancesystemdoesnotauthorizeadamageremedy._Nyhius_Ԁv.Reno,204F.3d65(3d.Cir.2000);Wyattv.  p Leonard,193F.3d876(6thCir.1999);Alexanderv.Hawk,159F.3d1321,1324(11th ` Cir.1998),reh'genbancdenied,172F.3d884(11thCir.1999.Othersholdthatexhaustionisnotrequiredwherefilingagrievancewouldbefutile.Rumblesv.Hill,182F.3d1064(9thCir. @ 1999);Whitleyv.Hunt,158F.3d882(5thCir.1998).Theissueisimportantbecausenon 0 exhaustedclaimsaregenerallydismissed,evenifexhaustioniscompletedafterthecomplaintisfiled.SeePerezv.WisconsinDepartmentofCorrection,182F.3d532(7thCir.1999).Where ! aninmateseeksbothinjunctivereliefandmonetarydamages,exhaustionislikelytoberequired,eveniftheprisongrievanceprocedurescanonlyprovideprospectiverelief.See,e.g.,_Lavista_ #! v.A.F._Beeler_,195F.3d254(6thCir.1999)(dismissingforfailuretoexhaustthecomplaintof $" blindinmatewhoalsousesawheelchairwhosoughtinjunctivereliefanddamagesbecausefacilitywasnotequippedtoprovideforsafetyofinmateswithvisualimpairmentsandbecausehewascompelledtosigndocumentshecouldnotread).Somecourtsrequirethatexhaustionbespecificallypledinthecomplaint.KnucklesElv._Toombs_,139F.3d640(6thCir.2000); P(#& Underwoodv.Wilson,151F.3d292(5thCir.1998). @)$' _ԇ (c)PhysicalInjuryRequirement Prisonerswithdisabilitieshaveoftenachievedremarkable  successinobtainingdamagesfordiscriminatorytreatmentthatviolatestheADA.See,e.g.,  _Beckford_Ԁv.Irvin,49_F.Supp_.2d170(W.D.N.Y.)($150,000incompensatoryandpunitive  damagesawardedtoinmatewithmobilityimpairment);Lovev._Westvile_ԀCorrectionalCenter,103  F.3d558(7thCir.1996)(affirmingajuryawardofapproximately$30,000toaquadriplegicprisonerwhowasdeniedaccesstoprogramsandservicesintheIndianaStatePrison).Underthe_PLRA_,however,aninmatemaynolongerbringaFederalcivilactionfora"mentaloremotionalinjury"withoutashowingofaconcomitant"physicalinjury."42U.S.C.1997e(e).SeeDavis @  v.DistrictofColumbia,158F.3d1342,1348-49(_D.C.Cir_.1998)(holdingthat1997e(e) 0  precludesprisoner'sclaimforemotionalinjuryundertheADAifthereisnopriorshowingofphysicalinjury);Cassidyv.IndianaDept.ofCorrection,199F.3rd374(7thCir.1999)(visually `  impairedinmate'sdamageactionbasedondenialofmeaningfulaccesstolawlibrary,recreationalareas,educationalprograms,jobassignments,vocationaltraining,otherprogramsandtrainingbarredbecausenophysicalinjury). d)RestrictionsonProspectiveRelief 󀄀The_PLRA_Ԁmandatesthat"inanycivilactionwithrespect  toprisonconditions"acourt"shallnotgrantorapproveanyprospectivereliefunlessthecourtfindsthatsuchreliefisnarrowlydrawn,extendsnofurtherthannecessarytocorrecttheviolationoftheFederalright,andistheleastintrusivemeansnecessarytocorrecttheviolationoftheFederalright."18U.S.C.3626(a)(1)(A).Underthe_PLRA_,prospectivereliefincorrectionalADAcasescanbegrantedonlyifaccompaniedbythesefindings.Thislimitationappliestosettlementagreementsandconsentdecreesaswellastoothercourtorders.Thepartiesmay,however,enterinto"privatesettlementagreements"thatdonotmeetthe_PLRA_Ԁstandards,buttheseareonlyenforceableascontractsinstatecourt.18U.S.C.3636(c)(2).Further,prospectivereliefmaybeterminatedaftertwoyearsunlessthecourtfindsthereisa"currentandongoingviolation"offederallaw.18U.S.C.3636(b)(1). e)LimitationsonAttorneyFees 󀄀The_PLRA_Ԁprohibitsattorneysfeesexceptwhen"directlyand P reasonablyincurredinprovinganactualviolationoftheplaintiffsrights."42U.S.C.1997e(d)(1)(A).Itisunclearwhetherthisprovisionprohibitsfeesincasesthataresettled,orwhetherfeesmaybeawardedunderthecatalystdoctrinewhenthesuitproducedreformbutthereisnocourtorder.Evenwhenthesuitissuccessful,the_PLRA_Ԁlimitsthehourlyrateatwhich ! attorneysfeesmaybeawardedunder1988to150%oftheratepaidtocourtappointedattorneysincriminalcasesinthatdistrict.42U.S.C.1997e(d)(3).And,inadamagecase,attorneys'feesarelimitedto150%oftheamountofthejudgment.42U.S.C.1997e(d)(2).Thereisastrongargument,however,thatthe_PLRA_Ԁlimitationsonattorneys'feesdonotapplytotheADAsincethatstatutehasitsownattorneys'feesprovision,42U.S.C.12205,thatisseparatefrom1988. p&!$ See_McClendon_Ԁv.CityofAlbuquerque,_CIV_Ԁ9524(_D.N.Mex_.2000)(the_PLRA_'sattorneyfee `'"% limitationsdonotpreempttheADA'sattorneyfeeprovisions);_Beckford_Ԁv.Irvin,60_F.Supp_.2d P(#& 85(_W.D.N.Y._)(holdingthatwhereprisonerprevailedonbothADAand1983claims,andwheretheclaimswere"inextricablyintertwined,"halfofcounsel'stimeshouldbecompensatedat_PLRA_ratesandhalfatmarketratesundertheADA'sfeeprovision).ButseeCassidyv.IndianaDept.  +p&) ofCorrection,199F.3rd374(7thCir.1999)(suggestingthat_PLRA_Ԁattorneyfeelimitationsapply ,`'* toADAcases).  II.WhatIsTheStandardofJudicialReviewinPrisonADACases?   ̀TheADArequiresprisonsorjails,likeotherpublicentities,toprovidereasonableaccommodationsforqualifiedinmateswithdisabilities.However,arequestedaccommodationisnotreasonableifiteitherimposesunduefinancialandadministrativeburdensonapublicentity,orrequiresafundamentalalterationinthenatureoftheprogram.See28_C.F.R._ԀS35.150(a)(3). @  Furthermore,theADAneverobligescorrectionalofficialstotakeanyactionthatwouldcreatea"significantrisktothehealthandsafetyofothers."Althoughtermslike"reasonableaccommodation"and"undueburden"canbedifficulttoapplyinanycontext,theirmeaninginthecorrectionalsettingisespeciallycontroversial.̀SomecourtsrejecttheADA'sframeworkaltogetherwhenreviewingclaimedviolationsofprisoners'rightsinfavoroftheverydeferentialstandardarticulatedbytheSupremeCourtinTurnerv._Safley_,482U.S.78(1994)forreviewofpracticesthatimpingeoninmates'   constitutionalrights.SeeGatesv.Rowland,39F.3d1439(9thCir.1994).UnderTurner,a  policyorpracticeisvalidifitis"reasonablyrelatedtolegitimate_penological_Ԁinterests."482U.S.at87.Thus,inArmstrongv.Davis,215F.3d1332,2000WL369622(April11,2000)(9thCir),  thecourtreversedthedistrictcourt'srulingthatprisonofficialshadtoshowthataccommodating  inmates'disabilitieswouldbeundulyburdensome.Rather,theTurnerstandardrequiredthatthe  burdenofproofbeplacedontheinmatestoestablishthatthechallengedpracticeswerenotreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimate_penological_Ԁinterest.Similarly,inMartinezv.California ` DepartmentofCorrection,1997WL207946(9thCir.(Cal.))(unpublisheddisposition),thecourt P affirmedthedistrictcourtdecisiongrantingsummaryjudgmenttotheprisonofficialsagainstaquadriplegicprisonerwhowasrestrictedbyprisonauthoritiestothehospitalareaoftheprisonanddeniedaccesstotheprison'sgeneralyard,classroomeducation,andvocationaltrainingprogramsonthesametermsasothersimilarlyclassifiedinmates.CitingTurner,thecourtheld ` thattherestrictionswerereasonablyrelatedtolegitimate_penological_Ԁinterestsinsecuritybecausetheplaintiffconcededthathecouldnotdefendhimselffromattackbyotherinmates.Thecourtrejectedtheviewthatitisnotrationaltopreventmisconductbypunishingthepotentialvictimratherthanthosewhomisbehave.  񀀀Clearly,theuseoftheTurnerstandardcansharplylimittheprotectionaffordedprisonersby "  theADA.Butevenwhencourtsapplythestandardssetforthintheactualstatute,theytendtobehighlydeferentialtotheviewsofprisonadministrators.AsJudge_Posner_ԀdeclaredinCrawford $" v.IndianaDept.ofCorrections,115F.3d481,487(7thCir.1997),"[_t]erms_Ԁlike"reasonable" % # and"undue"arerelativetocircumstances,andthecircumstancesofaprisonaredifferentfromthoseofaschool,anoffice,orafactory,"and"[_t]he_Ԁsecurityconcernsthatthedefendantrightlyemphasizes...arehighlyrelevanttodeterminingthefeasibilityoftheaccommodationsthatdisabledprisonersneedinordertohaveaccesstodesiredprogramsandservices."Thus,in_Onishea_Ԁv.Hopper,171F.3d1289(11thCir.1999)(enbanc),cert.denied,120_S.Ct_.931(2000), 0*%( althoughthecourtrejectedtheviewthattheTurnerstandardshoulddirectlysupplanttheADA  +p&) andRehabilitationActframeworkinprisoncases,itdeclaredthatwhetheraninmatemetthe ,`'* essentialeligibilityrequirementsforparticipationinaprisonprogramshouldbedeterminedinpartbytheimpactonlegitimate_penological_Ԁinterests,suchasprisonsecurityandthecostofmakingaccommodations.171F.3dat300.Accordingly,itrejectedtheclaimofHIVpositiveinmateswhoallegedthattheirexclusionfromtheprison'sgeneralpopulationyard,aswellasclassroomeducationandvocationaltrainingprogramsviolatedtheRehabilitationAct,reasoningthata"significantrisk"ofHIVtransmissionexistedforanyprisonprograminwhichHIV-positiveinmatessoughtparticipation;theprison'ssegregationpolicywasnotanexaggeratedresponsetotheriskofviolencebetweeninmates;costwasaproperconsiderationinthedeterminationofwhetherhiringofadditionalguardstodeterhigh-riskbehaviorwasareasonableaccommodationallowingintegratedprograms;andthehiringofadditionalguardscouldthereforeimposeanundueburdenontheprisonsystem.Id.AndinRandolphv.Rogers,170F.3d850(8thCir.1999),the `  courtreversedagrantofsummaryjudgmenttoaprisonerwithahearingimpairmentwhowasnotgivenaninterpreterduringdisciplinaryhearings,eventhoughastatestatuterequiredsuchaninterpreter,becausetherewasnonethelessagenuineissueofdisputedfactregardingwhetherasignlanguageinterpreterisareasonableaccommodationorimposesanundueburdenconsideringtheheightenedsecurityconcernsofaprison.  񀀀Ontheotherhand,inAmosv.Maryland_Dep't_ԀofPub.SafetyandCorrectional_Servs_.,178F.3d  212,220-22(4thCir.1999),vacatedonothergrounds,205F.3d687(4thCir.2000),thecourtexpresslyrejectedgraftingtheTurnerstandardintotheADAbecausethiswouldessentiallymean  thecourtwasrewriting"unambiguousstatutorylanguage."Instead,thecourtarguedfordeferencetoDepartmentofJusticeADAregulationsandapplicationofthe"reasonableaccommodation"languageoftheAct.ThisseemsthebetterapproachbecauseitcomportswiththeSupremeCourt'sconclusionin_Yeskey_thattheADAappliessquarelytoprisonsandbecause @ theTurnertestconflictswiththeADAbyshiftingtheburdenofjustifyingdenialofaccessto 0 programsandservicesfromtheinstitutiontotheinmate.Furthermore,thelanguageoftheADA,requiringthatmodificationsbe"reasonable"andnotimpose"undue"burdens,allowsforadequateconsiderationofthelegitimateinterestsofprisonadministrators.