Spencer v. Cain ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-30645
Conference Calendar
KIRK SPENCER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN, Warden,
Louisiana State Penitentiary, ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 96-CV-3294-B
- - - - - - - - - -
June 16, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, BENAVIDES, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kirk Spencer, Louisiana prisoner # 107286, appeals the
district court’s grant of summary judgment for the defendants in
this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the defendants
violated his First Amendment rights and his right to equal
protection by refusing to change his name on prison records and
his identification card to his legal Muslim name.
Spencer argues on appeal that he was denied equal protection
when the defendants refused to issue him an identification card
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 98-30645
-2-
reflecting his religious name as his legal name, as was
previously done for other similarly situated Muslim inmates.
Spencer has filed a motion to supplement the record on appeal
with a state court judgment in which a state court judge ruled
that the application of La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:4751(D) (West
Supp. 1999) to prevent a Muslim inmate from changing his name
violated the First Amendment. The motion to supplement the
record with this judgment is GRANTED. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(j).
Spencer identifies as a disputed fact the affidavits of
other inmates who allegedly have been allowed to be identified by
their Muslim names only on their identification cards. In their
affidavits, these prisoners state that their name changes
occurred before the effective date of the 1988 amendment
prohibiting name changes for felons. The district court did not
err in granting summary judgment for the defendants. See
Matthews v. Morales, 23 F.3d 118, 119-20 (5th Cir. 1994); Felix
v. Rolan, 833 F.2d 517, 518-19 (5th Cir. 1987).
AFFIRMED.