JESSE C. HARRELL A/K/A JESSE CLEVELAND HUNTER, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The denial of a petition for name change based on suspended civil rights does not violate RLUIPA because the state statute applies broadly and RLUIPA protects against burdens within federally funded institutional programs.
Appellant, a state prisoner, petitioned for a name change but admitted his civil rights were suspended. The trial court denied the petition for facial…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Religious Land Use And Institutionalized Persons Act (Rluipa) cases and more on FLexlaw
Appellant Jesse Harrell, a state prisoner, appeals the order denying his petition for change of name and dismissing his case. Section 68.07(3), Florida Statutes (2013), presents the requirements for a facially sufficient petition for name change, which includes the requirement that “the petitioner’s civil rights have never been suspended or, if the petitioner’s civil rights have been suspended, that full restoration of civil rights has occurred.” § 68.07(3)(k), Fla. Stat. (2013). Appellant’s petition was denied for being facially insufficient as he admitted that his civil rights are suspended. . . . .
On appeal, Appellant argues that the denial of his petition on this ground substantially burdens his exercise of religion in violation of the Religious Land Use and *1048Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-l (2000), which specifically provides for the protection of religious exercise of institutionalized persons because of their particular vulnerability to governmental regulation. We disagree with Appellant, and therefore affirm.
The RLUIPA has no application to Appellant’s claim because the purpose of the federal act is to protect inmates from governmental regulation within a correctional institution. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(b)(1) (2000) (providing that the section applies when “the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance”). See, e.g., Holt v. Hobbs, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 853,190 L.Ed.2d 747 (2015) (addressing a claim that a prison regulation prohibiting inmates from growing beards is a violation of RLUIPA). The law at issue is a state statute that applies to all persons petitioning for a name change, not merely those incarcerated within a correctional institution.
Affirmed.
DAMOORGIAN, C.J., CONNER and FORST, JJ., concur.