¶2Wilbur E. Sullivan, pro se.
¶3Lucy H. Harris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for defendants-appellees.
¶4Before CHARLES CLARK, VANCE and SAM D. JOHNSON, Circuit Judges.
¶7Wilbur E. Sullivan, a Florida state prisoner, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit complaining of the confiscation of $2,197.40 found by prison officials among his belongings. The district court granted summary judgment for defendants. We affirm.
The law of Florida specifically provides
(3) Any contraband found upon, or in the possession of, any patient or inmate in any [state] institution under the jurisdiction of any [state] division shall be confiscated and liquidated and the proceeds thereof shall be deposited in the welfare trust fund of the division.
¶9The Florida Department of Offender Rehabilitation adopted rule 33-3.06 that is ap*198plicable here. The rule provides that “money found in the possession of an inmate in excess of fifteen (15) dollars shall be considered contraband and shall be confiscated and deposited in the Welfare Trust Fund.” Sullivan was provided notice of this restriction in his orientation manual.1 Under the prison rules, Sullivan was permitted to have larger sums in an inmate banking account.
¶10Sullivan’s currency was found hidden in a talc can during an investigatory search. He first claimed to have brought the money with him when he came to prison. He later said he had saved it from sales of extra coffee while he was working in the prison canteen. He offered no explanation as to why most of the money was in hundred dollar bills.
¶11Sullivan was charged with possession of unauthorized amounts of cash, which he admitted. Prison officials returned fifteen dollars to him and confiscated and placed the balance in the Inmate Welfare Fund. No factual dispute appears from the record. Sullivan contends that confiscation of his money constitutes a due process violation.
¶12Judicial interference with prison administration should be avoided whenever possible. We sustain prison regulations unless they are found to be unreasonable and arbitrary. Hill v. Estelle, 537 F.2d 214, 215 (5th Cir. 197.6). Many valid reasons justify this restriction on the amount of currency that prison inmates are allowed. Large sums in possession of an inmate may invite attack by other inmates. Inmates with such funds are in better position to escape, to procure drugs, or to bribe guards or other prison employees. Large caches of currency in a prison serve no useful purpose and pose a significant potential for mischief. Prison inmates necessarily suffer a limitation of the rights, including property rights, enjoyed by ordinary citizens. Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822, 94 S.Ct. 2800, 41 L.Ed.2d 495 (1974). A state has a compelling interest in maintaining security and order in its prisons and, to the extent that it furthers this interest in reasonable and non-arbitrary ways, property claims by inmates must give way.
¶13Under similar facts the sixth circuit held that confiscation of an inmate’s currency did not violate his civil rights. Kimble v. Department of Corrections, 411 F.2d 990 (6th Cir. 1969). See also Aragon v. Wathen, 352 F.2d 77 (9th Cir. 1965). We agree that the Florida statute and regulation are reasonable and nonarbitrary, and therefore that summary judgment for the defendants was correctly entered.
¶14AFFIRMED.