in male inmate’s action alleging that he was denied equal pro-teetion because NCW inmates are allowed overnight visits from their children but inmates at Lincoln Correctional Center are not) (argued June 6, 1994). Comparing an isolated number of selected programs at NSP and NCW is thus a futile exercise. At bottom, using an inter-prison program comparison to analyze equal protection claims improperly assumes that the Constitution requires all prisons to have similar program priorities and to allocate resources similarly. Although the comparison between programs at NSP and those at NCW is not legally irrelevant, it is sufficiently attenuated that we believe it taints an analysis of whether the Department violated the plaintiffs’ equal protection rights. Cf. Timm, 917 F.2d at 1103 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, the Supreme Court’s Turner decision
recognizing that tenured troopers are not similarly situated to probationary troopers recognizing that individuals are generally not similarly situated when different decision makers are involved in the respective disciplinary action holding that nsp and ncw are not similarly situated for purposes of privacy rights because of differences in security concerns between the two prisons recognizing that act and wetlands regulations are generally applicable to all similarly situated property owners and cannot be viewed as being directed solely at the plaintiffs recognizing the potential for discrimination by local officials among similarly situated property owners who are underrepresented in the general population