retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U.S. 266, 285, 68 S.Ct. 1049, 92 L.Ed. 1356 (1948). These “considerations” include “deterrence of crime, rehabilitation of prisoners, and institutional security,” DeHart v. Horn, 227 F.3d 47, 50 (3d Cir.2000), as well as, I believe, allocation of limited prison resources. Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated: “because the ‘problems of prisons in America are complex and intractable,’ and because courts are particularly ‘ill equipped’ to deal with these problems, we generally have deferred to the judgments of prison officials in upholding these regulations against constitutional challenge.” Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 121 S.Ct. 1475, 1480, 149 L.Ed.2d 420 (2001) (internal citations omitted) (<HOLDING>). III. I also note that a decision in this case
holding time begins when the prisoner knows  the important facts not when the prisoner recognizes their legal significance holding that inmate did not possess a first amendment right to provide legal assistance to fellow inmates beyond protection normally accorded prisoners speech holding a prisoner has no constitutional right to a job in prison holding that a prisoner has no first amendment right to provide legal assistance to other inmates and that therefore prison officials did not violate the prisoners constitutional rights when they intercepted a letter containing legal advice that he sent to another prisoner holding that a pro se prisoner complaint is deemed filed as of the date the prisoner gives the complaint to prison officials to be forwarded to the court