Inc., v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200, 227, 115 S.Ct. 2097, 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995) (declining to make an exception for so-called “benign” racial classifications; “all racial classifications, imposed by whatever federal, state, or local governmental actor, must be analyzed by a reviewing court under strict scrutiny”). Morrison contends that we must also apply strict scrutiny review to defendants’ race-based prison policy. However, it has long been recognized that, within the prison environment, courts grapple with yet another set of special considerations— those dictated by the needs and problems inherent in a penitentiary. The Equal Protection Clause indisputably protects prisoners from arbitrary racial discrimination, see Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 84, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987) (<HOLDING>), but our review of prison policies and actions
holding required changes in prison policy not burdensome in light of the overall cost of operating the prison holding prison official must have acted with reckless disregard for the inmates safety holding prison nurse was not entitled to official immunity related to allegations that she failed to follow the prison policy related to inmate prescriptions because the prison policy regarding the maintenance and administration of inmates prescriptions does not depend on discretionary judgment calls holding that prison conditions are those aspects of prison life affecting the entire prison population holding that prison walls do not form a barrier separating prison inmates from the protections of the constitution