Qaid Rafeeq Azeez and Abdullah Muhammad v. James W. Fairman, Warden, John E. Wright, Asst. Warden, and A. Dodge, 120 (c.o.)
795 F.2d 1296
7th Cir.
1986
Check Treatment

*1 EASTERBROOK, Before POSNER and CAMPBELL, Judges, Circuit Senior Judge.* District POSNER, Judge. Circuit plaintiffs, Qaid Rafeeq Azeez and Muhammad, brought Abdullah suit under against U.S.C. the warden § * Illinois, Campbell, sitting by designation. Honorable William J. of the Northérn District of *2 curiosity A appeal other the Pontiac of the is the officials of Correctional de asking fendants’ us to set aside the Center, maximum-security declar which is Illinois’ atory judge granted relief that the district charging the prison, that defendants Muhammad, and vigorous Muhammad’s op religious deprived plaintiffs of their the position request. that The judge did refusing to Is- recognize freedom their opinion state in his would that he enter a dis- lamic names. After a bench trial the declaratory judgment, judg but the actual judge plaintiffs trict ruled in favor of the entirety: ment entered reads in “judg its each judgments and entered $150 pltfs ment entered favor the & ap- plaintiff, from the defendants which against dfts in the sum of $300 for peal. deprivation of their religious liberties.” Azeez and Muhammad were committed There not a word declaratory about re Stanley Pontiac under the names Russell litigant appeal lief. A cannot from a state They Jessie later Fields. converted judgment, ment of intention to enter a as present adopted Islam and names. judgment distinct from itself. Rule 58 changed Russell name of the means of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provided pur- for this says judgment appear that must on a just separate pose. piece paper separate, is, ch. 96. Fields Ill.Rev.Stat. that — opinion. from the court’s We calling take started himself Abdullah Muham- this requirement seriously. See, e.g., Stelpflug gave plaintiffs mad. The defendants Bank, v. Federal Land 790 F.2d 47 listing “a/k/a” cards both their “commit- Cir.1986) (per curiam). As there was no names, ted” and their new but times at declaratory judgment, there is no issue plaintiff sign refused to let either for vari- concerning before propriety us of de (such rights privileges library ous as Furthermore, claratory relief. a footnote access, religious access to ser- notarial in the defendants’ brief states without con vices, commissary i.e., snacks, ciga- — tradiction, parties and the confirmed at oral rettes) in their names. Islamic The defend- argument, that has Muhammad been re deprived plaintiffs ants also of these prison. leased from He no has interest— rights punishment from time to time as law, recognized by no interest federal plaintiffs’ refusing sign their “com- obtaining declaratory judg event—in times, however, mitted” names. At concerning religious ment liberties that punishment refusing was for use prison. he would entitled to if were in he cards merely because their “commit- parties’ us The desire to resolve an ted” names were before listed their Islamic issue is not power that within our to decide names. deeply. us troubles The federal courts defendants dis- contest the jurisdiction, must confine themselves to the finding trict court’s is a reason- $150 ample, gives which is that the Constitution money compensate able amount of each help carry them. Counsel must tous out being allowed to duty. The propri- of the determination sign his Islamic instead of his “committed” ety declaratory judgment, of a in a case in name, assuming such refusal was unlaw- judgment which such never entered ful. Nor deny, do the defendants at been, be moot if would it had is not purposes appeal, they of this . jurisdiction. within that recognized should have name however, damages, The award of pre- prescribed because he followed the being moot, entire vents the case from Rather, statutory argue procedure. they requires us to consider two substantive is- they pay from having are immune sues: whether state officials can damages they to Azeez because acted (Muhammad) insist that use a refusing faith in statutory procedure for his name change, they and that did not violate before will recognize the name change, Muhammad’s constitutional all. if even name has a complete deference to the deci- motivation; though not and whether authorities on matters damages sions of liable in held from immune of order. “We affecting the maintenance recognize a name having refused must, accord, wide- we means of the (Azeez’s) made adopting policies ranging deference statutory procedure. *3 internal order and preserve are needed to found, and the judge The district Miller, supra, 790 security.” Caldwell v. finding, challenge the defendants F.2d at 596. changed their names that the opinion Although the district court’s rec it is of and that religious reasons sincere ognizes not entitled that Muhammad was religious beliefs their fensive to card, threaten to mutilate his identification any names for sign their old forced staff, require that name be prison and true for Muhammad This is as purpose. records, changed prison on it does not rec though Muhammad never Azeez, even ognize practical difficulties that enforc change his name the statu attempted to ing right change the common law one’s that a is also uncontested It tory means. name would create for the authori (like Illinois, Muhammad which citizen of maximum-security pris in ties. Prisoners is, common law Azeez) has a making ons do not dedicate themselves Reinken, Reinken v. change his name. guards wardens. life easier and (1933). 409, The de 184 N.E. 639 351 Ill. way in can make life more One which therefore, so far as Mu position, fendants’ by changing their names fre difficult is concerned, is-that consid case is hammad’s Every prisoner changes quently. time security discipline and erations must his name the staff unlearn curtailing prisoner’s common law justify many If old name and learn the new. name, change his even when right to old names prisoners happen to reli exercising that motivation for (how many “Abdul to the same new name gious. there in lah Muhammads” are courts did a time when federal There was wonder?), they prison system today, we can pris in the internal affairs not intervene prisoners course cause chaos. Of Commonwealth, (cf. v. ons at all. names, plain but the Ruffin numbers as well as Gratt.) 790, (1871)), (21 and 62 796 Va. argument suggested at tiffs’ counsel today past, even these that time religious scruples against if a had prisons considerably with a regulate courts number, scruples identified these regulate pub lighter touch than Compare too. Bowen v. must be honored — deprive lic institutions 2147, —, 106 S.Ct. 90 Roy, U.S. employees charges of federal or wards (1986). People L.Ed.2d the outside 735 on see our extensive re rights; constitutional (except women rarely their names in v. Mil cent discussion of cases Caldwell chang upon getting married—and that is Cir.1986), ler, 589, (7th 595-600 790 F.2d may ing), because of the confusion involving prisoners’ case another prisoners may But want to cause result. security problems of The liberties. confusion, pay do not event maximum-security prisons present-day who, person having price as a free same See, e.g., acute. United States v. Silver name, friends changed his must inform his stein, (7th Cir.1984); F.2d 732 1338 United acquaintances get a new and business Fountain, license, cards, 768 F.2d 790 Cir. States v. so on. driver’s credit 1985). Recently that “Pontiac is Coughlin, we noted v. plaintiff The Salahuddin murderers, 353, (S.D.N.Y.1984), rapists, a den of and others F.Supp. 358-59 591 (as no all too as three respect law—and Moslem names well two may ones), “professed contempla nothing often to lose from further Christian 507, future, Rowe, which changes hem.” 791 F.2d 512 tion of name in the Walker (7th Cir.1986). accomplish at will.” We have therefore insisted he wants be able imagine can a situation judges give great circuit Id. at 359. So we district

1299 morning overturning judgment when roll is called one basis for where favor Fields refuses to answer name because of Muhammad. The failure to enforce a Muhammad; night he it to changed last consistently rule does not make the rule Azeez, it day he next See, e.g., Oyler Boles, unconstitutional. How back to Fields. are the authori- next 448, 456, 501, 505, 368 82 U.S. S.Ct. 7 keep prisoners in these ties to track (1962); 446 L.Ed.2d v. City Hameetman circumstances? Chicago, (7th Cir.1985). 641 would hypothetical No doubt our case requires prisoners rule at Ponti of the law represent an abuse common ac to follow the Chaney name. right to one’s Cf. reasonable, one’s name is see Sa Comm’n, 82 45 Service Ill.2d Civil Coughlin, supra, lahuddin v. F.Supp. 591 (1980). But Ill.Dec. N.E.2d 358-59; Stephenson, Rahman v. abusing concept the boundaries of the F.Supp. (W.D.Tenn.1986), at least *4 change common to one’s the law if procedure by the prisoner, usable a obscure, are we do not think it name by and it All was Muhammad. the statute be said a of federal can as matter constitu requires is prisoner that the have been a law that common law the tional the fixes months, resident Illinois for six which prison to boundaries Muhammad had the been at time he in curtailed the federal have name, adopted his Islamic petition that he the perchance prison If mates. authorities name, an court change Illinois to violating law are Muhammad’s common publish that he the name in a news rights, remedy proceeding the is a in Illi paper a few publi weeks. The cost of law; court Illinois nois under an error might pose cation an to pris obstacle some state law not a of federal due denial oners it did but not to Azeez and there is process. Lynk Superior v. LaPorte Court suggestion no it would to have Cir.1986). Muhammad. No. We not prisoner need consider the case of a suggestion our might To that chaos re- publish, who cannot afford to or who can if sult could inmates statutory procedure not use the because he require prison’s names at will and staff hasn’t lived Illinois for six months. change, plaintiffs’ to replied argument counsel that the record By requiring undergo inmates to the for- this no case contains evidence that statutory procedure pris- malities of the changes prisoners by of name at Pontiac prevent capricious, on authorities inces- confusion, have caused serious even sant, casual, sudden, harassing, on-the-spot appears ago it a years that some changes. Judging experi- name prisoners number of black converted Is- burdensome, ence the formalities are not adopted all at once lam Islamic names. just suggestion and there is as we no said are required But not to that would they have been a burden for catastrophe They acting. wait before prisoners Muhammad. The allows prepare confusing ought in advance for only compels names and harassing too just frequent or or name procedure do so designed them to a rule, changes. They ought to have a a (imperfectly institutions, all human in- —but policy. The rule Pontiac authori- undertakings, deed all human imper- adopted recog- they ties is that will fect) pranksters, to weed out the the wise only nize the. effected guys, troublemakers, the insincere. statutory procedure that provides powerful But are these considerations True, changing one’s name. didn’t enough justify impeding the free exer- always follow their own rule in Azeez’s religion, cise of case, Supreme which the why ap- which is confine their prisoners Court held enjoy by in his has state peal immunity; case to the issue of their lack virtue of the First as but of consistent observance does Amendment read into invoking bar them from as a rule the Fourteenth Amendment? It is true that, literally, precise Amendment But there is no need to fix on a First read case) case, (so to this seems standard for under pertinent far as stan- governmental discrimination Muhammad must lose. prohibit only dard The record religious particular against religion significant abridgment does not show a sects; freedom; indeed, the amendment would religious may, so understood there reg general of a application abridgment not forbid have been no at all. For there adopted for valid that had been requiring ulation is no evidence that an Islamic religious group, what to a secular reasons undergo a nonburdensome group. consequences for ever his name however, inter how such an Recognizing, imposes religious hardship Sup- on him. Amendment would pretation of the First posing, as we do—because the district of dominant the interests elevate judge so found and the do defendants minority religious groups those of over appeal on this contend otherwise—that operation of the the normal groups upon converting Jesse Fields Islam —since , govern political process will assure required adopt name, an Islamic still we not interfere with regulations mental suggestion find no required that he was majority religious practices of the do so at the —the moment of conversion. So far govern Supreme has held that the Court appears, required he was to do so at the regulations to must its accom ment bend opportune first moment—within a reason- See, religious practices. modate sincere able time—and there is no evidence that Verner, e.g., 374 U.S. Sherbert v. the time it get would have taken him to *5 1790, (1963); 10 L.Ed.2d 965 Thomas S.Ct. statutory name would have been Employment Indiana v. Review Bd. thought of by any unreasonable of his reli- Division, 707, Security 450 U.S. 101 S.Ct. gious mentors. 1425, (1981); McConnell, L.Ed.2d 624 67 grant duty right We that and need not be Religion, Accommodation 1985 S.Ct. of area; coextensive in this the to reli- 1, Rev. 34-40. But how far? No definitive gious may by public freedom be violated a emerged. Compare standard has Sherbert regulation prevents practice merely that a 403, Verner, supra, 374 U.S. at with recommended, mandatory, and not for Yoder, 205, 220, 406 U.S. Wisconsin particular members of a faith. See McCon- 1526, 1535, (1972), S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 15 nell, supra, at 34. But there is no greater receptivity arguments the notice if evidence that told he must use his “com- prison security based on the needs of in our dealings pris- mitted” name in his with the decision, supra, recent in Caldwell than on authorities for a brief interval until his Franzen, our earlier in Madyun decision statutory through, name went Mu- (7th Cir.1983)— 960-61 thought hammad would have he was though Madyun rejected even in we the something contrary asked to do to his reli- prisoner’s claim and made clear that an gious beliefs. cannot, “simply inmate expect the same where, So this seems to in case infringement freedom from incidental on Ass’n, High Menora v. Illinois School religious practices the exercise of that (7th Cir.1982), F.2d 1030 the con- enjoyed by those not incarcerated.” Id. religious liberty public flict between Maybe prison in setting at 958. the the safety is nonexistent—imagined question govern answer to the how far false— conflict, arising from a failure to attend go religious ment must to accommodate carefully specific to the beliefs, is, far, content of reli- very of the because gious obligation. Just as in there danger prisoners prison to the other if the Menora religious obligation yar- was no per lose control and to wear authorities because might mulke that fall off because it hadn’t sons who want exercise securely might trip up rights just without interference can do so been fastened and committing punishable by players, crimes other basketball so in this case imprisonment. appears religious obligation there to be no adopt present an name at the moment of in the longer Islamic case no insist to Islam. conversion names on its books. But it was not clear in back deprivation reli- If no of Muhammad’s 1981 that such cases would be distin- shown, gious liberty has been he must of guished and that the line would be drawn depriva- if course lose. But there was a between the use of “committed” names for tion, slight very still it was and was out- record-keeping purposes. security weighed by benefits insisting prisoners order from Although recognized it was well recognized who want their new names prisoners 1981 that retain their constitu (at follow where rights tional compatible to the extent so) simple statutory it is feasible to of discipline needs safety, procedure provides which Illinois application generality of this to reli changing one’s name. giously motivated cir of present cumstances like those case question The other we must decide yet to be authoritatively determined. the defendants are immune whether “clearly words established ... consti liability having Azeez from at times rights” may tutional not be used to read sign privileges refused to let him immunity the defense of out of federal tort name even he had used the Islamic expedient law the facile stating con adopt This it. de rights stitutional in the general possi most pends on the defendants vio whether were terms, anyone ble so prevails who on lating ... “clearly established constitution (for merits a claim based on exam person rights al ... of which a reasonable ple) First Amendment’s free exercise known.” Fitzger would have Harlow v. religion clause, is, however novel claim ald, 818, 102 2727, 2738, 457 U.S. S.Ct. can immunity defeat defense of simply (1982). 73 L.Ed.2d 396 Azeez does not seek by pointing out that the to the free damages violation religion long law, exercise of one’s has been a under state so we need not consider clearly right. established constitutional by insisting desig whether on an “a/k/a” *6 right sufficiently particular The must be or by continuing nation otherwise to use put potential ized to defendants on Azeez’s “committed” notice name the defendants probably that is rights clearly conduct violated established Illi unlawful. The only question statute. is nois whether 1981, question So the whether is in in the they any clearly violated feder established any judicial prece- absence of authoritative right. al constitutional (for dent of State Illinois is not bound time, 1981, only every At the to with comply ruling relevant case constitutional had prisoner States, that held that a in every judge a federal district the United right change constitutional see Shirley Chagrin both v. Exempted Falls Educ., for religious and insist Village reasons Schools Bd. of 1329, that recognize Cir.1975); Benjamin 1333-34 v. new name a Comm’rs, was district court decision Ill.App.3d Board Election 122 of circuit, 693, Masjid 697, 507, 626, outside this Muhammad- 78 Ill.Dec. 462 N.E.2d Keve, 1311, (1984), F.Supp. especially 479 628 D.D.C. 1321-26 when inas this case (D.Del.1979); contrary was arguably there au there contrary authority— was thority, in holding level) cases author appeals some of it at the court of do not to recognize religiously dealing right ities have with the of a change prison’s compel recognition motivated name on the in religiously aof motivat- records, Canney, name, ternal see change right clearly Akbar 634 ed was (6th Cir.1980) curiam); 339 (per F.2d question Smal established. To ask the an- is to Bell, (W.D.Okla. ley F.Supp. 484 18 only slight swer it. Prison authorities had 1979). may distinguishable Such cases be reason to believe then that the Constitution Masjid present case; interpreted from indeed would be them forbid to cur- 1302 only

tail prisoner’s statutory postdates common because law Barrett name, right deprivation even if the name rights, it is sincerely motivated reli- evidence that the defendants violated some plaintiffs’ gious The belief. counsel “clearly right established” of Azeez’s. argument case at that some conceded such today, Even we doubt that his could incursions constitutional —that the de- are described; so we not sure we example required fendants could have Barrett, agree with that is not an put request Muhammad to for a issue we need resolve this case. writing. So name in it is all matter of The defendants are immune from degree, Azeez and con- with Muhammad Azeez, pay damages ordered to ceding common that the law can be never violated Muhammad’s constitutional upon requiring encroached to the extent of rights. judgment plaintiffs for the request a written their new reversed with judg- instructions enter (at insisting names and the defendants ment for the defendants. intermittently) least in at least Reversed. go by would have to prison, names “committed” while authorities; in dealing plain- with CAMPBELL, Judge, Senior District dis- tiffs course were of free use their senting in part. adopted as soon names as were re- I we damage believe should affirm the (Muhammad released, leased has been given to award Azeez affirm Judge said), we as well dealing as in ruling Baker’s in' in doing this area so. In prisoners, family, etc. issue, analyzing this we must follow the today Even it is not that it obvious would principles forth in set v. Fitzger- Harlow violate the Constitution for the defendants ald, 2727, 2738, U.S. S.Ct. position.

to hold to this We have not said (1982) L.Ed.2d 396 where it was held: claims in trump this case performing discre- [Government legitimate state’s interest maintain- tionary generally functions are shielded ing prison discipline safety. Requiring liability damages from for civil insofar as statutory adherence to the procedure does clearly there conduct does not violate rights, violate Muhammad’s and of statutory established or constitutional course it forbidding does not follow that all rights of which person a reasonable by prisoners of names violates should have known. prisoner’s rights. The test in this circuit May On Circuit prison regulation for a challenged on reli- Mandamus, Court issued a Writ request- gious grounds reasonableness; *7 Azeez, ed requiring prison required officials are not use the least “hereinafter conduct all official business regu- restrictive alternative to attain valid using his new name.” To latory objectives safety. [Azeez] such as Caldwell paraphrase Harlow, I supra, Miller, consider the supra, 790 F.2d at 596 n. 11. writ clearly Even in established 1986 the to make staff right (at Illinois) constitutional religiously motivated name referred to Muslim clearly established, new name.' Indeed, 1,1981 it on years properly was June Azeez was certainly ago; not five issued an judicial bearing only illustration identification card attitude in period his Muslim name. day toward Yet curtailment later same by prison liberties card was Rogers inexplicably confiscated Scurr, he Cir.1982). given reading a card “Stanley Rus- Granted, Azeez,” v. Virginia, Qaid Barrett sell clearly F.2d a/k/a Rafeez indi- (4th Cir.1982), cating invalidated a on primarily ban officials would still “con- allowing prisoners to statutory pro- use duct official him using business” with name; cedure for one’s but if old Azeez up rights stood for his name. clearly after established were courts. As a result he was denied privileges

all for two weeks. due

I believe officials had notice

from the Illinois courts about (if callously deliberately)

Azeez and

violated them. kind of callousness This condoned I would affirm

should not be damage

Judge award as to Azeez. Baker’s QUALITY

WATER EM ASSOCIATION BENEFIT

PLOYEES’

CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant, America,

UNITED STATES of

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 85-1714. Appeals,

United Court States

Seventh Circuit.

Argued Feb. 1986. July

Decided 1986. *8 Davis, Cate,

Peter M. Keck & Mahin Chicago, Ill., plaintiff-appellant. Roach, Justice, Dept, Michael J. Wash- ington, D.C., defendant-appellee.