Yasir v. Singletary
| Decision Date | 15 September 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 5D99-1883.,5D99-1883. |
| Citation | 766 So.2d 1197 |
| Parties | Sabir Abdul-Haqq YASIR, Appellant, v. Harry K. SINGLETARY, Michael Friedman and Michael Cotton, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir, Clermont, pro se.
Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Locksley O. Wade, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellees.
Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir ["Yasir"] a/k/a Randy Ferguson appeals a "final summary judgment" entered in favor of the defendants, various prison officials, below. In his complaint, Yasir challenged the loss of sixty days gain time for using his new religious name1 in conjunction with his committed name (Randy Ferguson) on official documents. Yasir alleged that the refusal to permit him to use his new religious name violated his right to religious freedom under Article I, Section 3, of the Florida Constitution, and his rights under Florida's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, § 761.01, et seq.
The record shows that DOC has recognized Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir as his committed name, and the DOC does not contend on appeal that Yasir is not entitled to use his new religious name.2 The DOC's position appears to be that it was entitled to insist that Yasir use his original committed name until the Department recognized the name change by changing his committed name to Yasir. Yasir seems to be arguing that the DOC was required to recognize his new legal name as his committed name (or to allow him to use his new legal name in conjunction with his committed name) as soon as he gave his probationary officer a certified copy of the court order changing his name (which he alleges was on July 31, 1998).
We agree with the lower court that prison officials have the right to impose reasonable limitations on institutional uses of changed names, whether the change was religiously motivated or not. See Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78, 89, 107 S.Ct. 2254, 96 L.Ed.2d 64 (1987)
; O'Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U.S. 342, 107 S.Ct. 2400, 96 L.Ed.2d 282 (1987); Spies v. Voinovich, 173 F.3d 398 (6th Cir.1999); Azeez v. Fairman, 795 F.2d 1296 (7th Cir.1986); Warner v. City of Boca Raton, 64 F.Supp.2d 1272 (S.D.Fla.1999); compare Matthews v. Morales, 23 F.3d 118 (5th Cir.1994); Whitmore v. State, 752 So.2d 365 (La.App. 1 Cir., 2000). To require the changed name to be administratively processed prior to the prisoner being allowed to travel under the new name is reasonable. Yasir has not alleged that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dorman v. Aronofsky
...that compelling governmental interest." Because the FRFRA applies to and protects those in custody, see Yasir v. Singletary , 766 So. 2d 1197, 1198 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), we assume without deciding that it creates a liberty interest sufficient to trigger due process protections.6 Here the due......
-
Dorman v. Chaplains Office BSO
... ... furthering that compelling governmental interest." ... Because the FRFRA applies to and protects those in custody, ... see Yasir v. Singletary , 766 So.2d 1197, 1198 (Fla ... 5th DCA 2000), we assume without deciding that it creates a ... liberty interest ... ...
-
Toca v. State, No. 2D01-1424
...as coequal to the federal one, and have measured government regulations against it accordingly.6 See, e.g., Yasir v. Singletary, 766 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). See also Commentary to Art. I, § 3, 1968 Revision of the Florida Constitution (observing that Florida's Free Exercise Clause p......
-
Warner v. City of Boca Raton
...interpretation. See First Baptist Church of Perrine v. Miami-Dade County, 768 So2d. 1114 (Fla 3rd DCA 2000); Sabir Abdul-Haqq Yasir v. Singletary, 766 So.2d 1197 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000). 3. We doubt this view is correct. We can find no support in Florida law for this contention. Also, the very ......