Petitioner is an artist currently in the custody of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC). He commenced this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Respondents (DOC officials) alleging violations by Respondents, who through policy and practice overly restricted Petitioner's ability to create and view art. This case falls under the Reasonable Relationship Standard ("The Standard" or "Turner analysis") for review of Constitutional infringements in the prison context. Broadly limned, the question is as to what is the proper methodology of applying the standard, and if the courts below did so; Pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 14(1)(a) the Court should construe that Prow means to include fairly within this all factors of analysis on all points.

Did the District Court, and Eighth Circuit by unelaborated affirmance, err by:

Not performing overbreadth analysis

Not performing as-applied analysis

Not ruling there is a blanket ban in effect on some genres of art

Not giving treatment to the issue raised that there is a blanket ban in effect, on any creation of an image with content of nudity

Not considering Prow's arguments as movant but only those responsive to respondents'

Not analyzing the specific challenges petitioner made to the multiple specific restrictions encompassed by the policies

Not considering expert testimony provided by petitioner

Not reviewing all of petitioner's objections to the report and recommendation (R&R)

Not making findings of fact in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party on disputed facts, or alternatively not granting summary judgment, most notably over the dispute over the actual manner policies were applied, and the true intent of the restrictions

Not considering alternative policies petitioner put forth of which respondents did not refute (both hobby craft and contraband) the do minimis nature

Not reviewing physical evidence submitted by petitioner

Not granting the declaratory relief petitioner sought when respondents admitted to the point of declaration being sought (rendering Prow nonprevailing when he nonetheless achieved some of the relief sought)

Not giving treatment to the fact that staff are trained to apply policy different than respondents explain it is applied

Not analyzing petitioner's argument that respondents' so-called "featuring" exception for certain nudity is invalid because, inter alia, "features" is not even defined in policy

Not ruling the specific hobby craft restrictions which Prow raised as invalid but which Respondents did not specifically refute

Disregarding expert testimony that the specific hobby craft restrictions challenged caused free speech infringement with no alternative means for expressing the right

Ruling c/c naininiis alternatives to the hobby craft policy don't exist, when petitioner in fact proffered multiple alternatives which the respondents did not refute as not being de minimis and have been held as c/c minimis by other courts

Proper methodology for applying Turner standard for constitutional infringements in prison context