Jesse C. Harrell a/k/a Jesse Cleveland Hunter v. State of Florida

District Court of Appeal of Florida

Jesse C. Harrell a/k/a Jesse Cleveland Hunter v. State of Florida

183 So. 3d 1047, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, 2015 WL 1668942

CourtDistrict Court of Appeal of Florida

DecidedApril 15, 2015

Docket4D13-559

StatusPublished

This text of 183 So. 3d 1047 (Jesse C. Harrell a/k/a Jesse Cleveland Hunter v. State of Florida) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court of Appeal of Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jesse C. Harrell a/k/a Jesse Cleveland Hunter v. State of Florida, 183 So. 3d 1047, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, 2015 WL 1668942 (Fla. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

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 *1048 Institutionalized 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

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 *1048 Institutionalized 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 So. 3d 1047, 2015 Fla. App. LEXIS 5506, 2015 WL 1668942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jesse-c-harrell-aka-jesse-cleveland-hunter-v-state-of-florida-fladistctapp-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack