Bilal Ali Salaam, A/K/A Kevin Robinson and Khalil Al-Baaqee Saleem Abdullah, A/K/A Willie Blevins v. A.L. Lockhart, Superintendent of Arkansas Department of Correction, and Larry Norris, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction, Bilal Ali Salaam, A/K/A Kevin Robinson and Khalil Al-Baaqee Saleem Abdullah, A/K/A Willie Blevins v. A.L. Lockhart, Superintendent of Arkansas Department of Correction, and Larry Norris, Warden, Maximum Security Unit, Arkansas Department of Correction

Citation: 905 F.2d 1168Docket: 89-2341

Court: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; July 27, 1990; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Bilal Ali Salaam, formerly known as Kevin Robinson, legally changed his name after converting to Islam while incarcerated in Arkansas. In 1986, he filed a pro se lawsuit seeking injunctive relief against the Arkansas prison policy requiring the use of committed names on official records and correspondence. The district court denied his request and refused to appoint counsel. The Eighth Circuit Court reversed the lower court's decision, referencing the Turner v. Safley standard, suggesting that the prison's policy could be deemed unreasonable if it impeded Salaam's right to exercise his religion.

Following remand, a magistrate found that while the mail room policy was unreasonable, the prison could still refuse to update Salaam's committed name in its official records and on clothing. The Court ruled that prison authorities must allow mail addressed solely to Salaam, ensure his current name is added to his clothing, and modify record-keeping only to the extent necessary for him to receive prison services under his new name. The ruling emphasized that prisoners retain constitutional protections, including the right to religious expression, despite the confines of prison life.

Salaam, a follower of the Islamic faith, finds his former name offensive and seeks a name change that aligns with his religious beliefs, which the defendants do not dispute is motivated by religion or that it has spiritual significance. However, the defendants argue that their policy, which restricts name changes, serves legitimate state interests in security and administrative efficiency. Legal standards dictate that prison regulations infringing on inmates' constitutional rights must be assessed for reasonableness without requiring the least restrictive means. Four factors are considered: 1) the regulation's advancement of a legitimate government interest; 2) whether inmates have alternative means to exercise the same right; 3) the impact on prison resources; and 4) the availability of obvious, easy alternatives that suggest a lack of reasonableness. The document emphasizes that while prison officials have some discretion, courts must ensure that regulations do not excessively burden constitutional rights and that any significant ripple effects on inmates or staff are acknowledged. Regulations should not be broader or more burdensome than necessary, and while alternatives do not need to be cost-free, insubstantial costs are acceptable. The review of these regulations is thorough and independent.

The legal document details a case involving an inmate, Salaam, who sought recognition of his name change within the prison system. The court previously noted the use of the "a/k/a" (also known as) designation and remanded the case for further consideration, suggesting it might be an "obvious, easy alternative" under the Turner criteria. Salaam articulated the spiritual and practical implications of his name change, emphasizing issues such as undelivered mail and his inability to cash money orders issued under his new name. He expressed that while he could be called by either name, he preferred his new name, which would facilitate social interactions with fellow inmates.

A.L. Lockhart, the Director of the Arkansas Department of Corrections, testified against the implementation of the a/k/a designation, citing concerns about the administrative burden of changing records and the potential for confusion in inmate identification. He feared that the need to document two names could complicate records and hinder communication with law enforcement. Lockhart also worried that if inmates received documents in their former names, it could lead to noncompliance or conflicts, particularly regarding parole orders. Additionally, he opposed displaying changed names on inmate clothing, fearing it could lead to confrontations if staff continued to use the former name and complicate identification processes. Lockhart estimated that there could be approximately 400-450 Muslim inmates in Arkansas prisons, a number that is disputed.

The magistrate upheld the prison's policy of using an inmate's committed name, citing the importance of accurate records, identification, and efficient mail delivery. The policy was assessed against the Turner factors, with the magistrate finding that it served valid prison interests and did not unduly restrict Salaam's practice of his faith. The magistrate noted a significant number of Muslim inmates, predicting that allowing name changes for one could lead to overwhelming administrative burdens. He deemed the alternative of adding an inmate's new name to clothing impractical due to potential confusion and security risks but acknowledged that including the new name on mail lists would not compromise institutional interests.

However, the court disagreed with the magistrate on several points. It criticized the magistrate for not fully understanding the relief sought by Salaam, specifically that he did not seek to eliminate the use of his committed name. The magistrate also appeared to undervalue the religious significance of a conversion name and overestimated the administrative burden of implementing name changes. The court noted a lack of evidence regarding the religious implications of name changes beyond Salaam's testimony, which they found credible. Ultimately, the court emphasized that the importance of the religious right was underestimated while the administrative interest was overvalued.

Lockhart expressed concerns about the administrative workload required to update institutional files with a new name for inmate Salaam but did not assess the time necessary for these changes. He acknowledged that simply typing the new name into each file would suffice. Even under the assumption that all paperwork needed alteration, he estimated that it would take less than an hour per inmate, though the exact time was unspecified. The magistrate noted there were only eight active prison files, indicating that the burden of updating these files, while present, was not substantial. The prison is only required to update Salaam's name on his file jacket and relevant lists, not on all documents.

The magistrate's conclusion that the burden of changing eight folders was significant was disputed, particularly since there were few name change requests. The analysis also hinged on Lockhart's belief that a large number of similar inmates would request name changes, with estimates of 400-450 Muslims incarcerated statewide. However, there was no evidence regarding how many inmates might seek name changes or how many had already adopted religious names. Testimony indicated uncertainty about previous name changes among inmates.

Furthermore, the prison retains the right to evaluate the sincerity of name change requests, and there was no evidence suggesting malicious intent behind such requests. Given the minimal effort required for implementation, it was determined that the potential influx of name change requests would not justify the current policy on record keeping. The conclusion that the administrative burden outweighed Salaam's religious interest in his new name was rejected, leading to a finding that the prison's policy of excluding new names was unreasonable. This conclusion aligns with prior court rulings that have similarly deemed name change prohibitions as unreasonable and recognized the need for reasonable accommodations within prison policies.

The prison's refusal to modify its record-keeping practices is deemed unreasonable, particularly given the restrictive nature of the policy compared to valid prison interests acknowledged by Arkansas officials. At the time Bilal Ali Salaam changed his name, Arkansas law allowed citizens to petition for name changes, and state law mandated that individuals would be known by their new names post-judgment. Although Arkansas previously restricted prisoners from changing names, it later reverted this restriction, allowing for name changes while requiring that prison records continue to reflect the committed name. This current policy is deemed excessively broad relative to state law, which does not prohibit the inclusion of an alternative name in prison records.

Lockhart opposes adding Salaam's new name on his clothing due to concerns about confrontation and misidentification, asserting that he could manage the use of all names together but fears hostility if inmates are called by their former names. He claims that guards are violating department policy by using Salaam's new name. The existing policy creates potential for confrontation, as guards cannot use Salaam's legal name, and some inmates may not respond to their committed names.

The alternate option to use an "also known as" (a/k/a) name would allow guards to address inmates by their chosen names, reducing confusion. While Lockhart's concerns about potential trouble are acknowledged, it is argued that adding Salaam's new name should not increase confrontation incidents. Furthermore, the rights of compliant inmates should not be sacrificed due to the actions of those who may cause trouble. Salaam has indicated he would respond to any of the names, and there is no evidence of him causing issues since his name change in 1984. Prison officials retain the authority to discipline inmates who do not comply with orders, and the burden on staff to use legal names is considered minimal.

Lockhart's concerns regarding misidentification due to the use of an alias (a/k/a) are unfounded, as the inmate's committed name and number remain displayed on their clothing. Even if a disciplinary violation is reported under a new name, the prison must maintain records of that name alongside the original. The issue mirrors existing practices with nicknames in the prison. The defendants' refusal to include Salaam's legal name on his clothing is deemed unreasonable. The judgment of the magistrate is both affirmed in part and reversed in part, directing a remand for injunctive relief. One plaintiff's claim was dismissed for lack of prosecution, and he did not appeal. The adoption of Muslim names by inmates is recognized as an exercise of First Amendment rights and religious freedom. The context of reasonableness calls for a balance between prison administrative needs and prisoners' constitutional rights, emphasizing mutual accommodation. The Supreme Court's decision in Employment Division v. Smith does not impact this analysis. The magistrate did not address Lockhart's claim concerning potential confusion or coordination issues with law enforcement regarding inmate identification. The prison is not required to reorganize its files, and the inclusion of new names could benefit law enforcement agencies. The defendants' future policy should aim to minimize confrontations.