was motivated by a legitimate penological interest.”). While the individual corrections officers who confiscated Barnes’s Tsalot-Kob may very well have been acting reasonably when following DOCS policy, a different analysis may apply to those responsible for the policy. On this record, it is not apparent whether there was a legitimate penological reason to limit only Tsal-ob-Kobs to inmates registered as Rastafarian. Therefore, we cannot say as a matter of law that it was objectively reasonable for those defendants to believe that denying a Tsalot-Kob to an inmate registered as Jewish was constitutional. Moreover, because defendants have not identified any penological interests supporting the policy, we cannot assess the reasonableness of their actions. See Salahuddin, 467 F.3d at 276 (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we remand to the district court
holding that record did not show voluntary or intelligent waiver holding that it could not review the district courts rulings on the admissibility of exhibits since they were not included in the record on appeal holding that this line of cases was not on point and that no error was apparent on the face of the record due to lack of reporters record from defaultjudgment hearing because the judgment reflected that it was based only on the pleadings and affidavits that were in the record holding trial court did not err in failing to define manufacture holding that where prison officials did not point  to anything in the record to show that they relied on legitimate penological justifications court could not manufacture facts out of thin air