___________ No. 95-2549

___________ Moorish Science Temple of * America, Inc.; Frank Applewhite; * Curtis Owen, * * Appellants, * Appeal from the United States * District Court for the v. * District of Minnesota. * [UNPUBLISHED] Dennis Benson, Warden; Steve * Hokonson, Chaplain, * * Appellees. *

___________ Submitted: May 20, 1996 Filed: May 29, 1996

___________ Before McMILLIAN, WOLLMAN, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM. Plaintiffs, a branch temple of the Moorish Science Temple of Am erica, Inc. ( MSTA), an inmate religious group at the Minnesota Correctiona l Facil ityat Stillwater (MCF), and two inmate members of the grou p (colle ctively, the Moors), appeal the district court's grant of summar y jud gment to defendants, MCF Warden Dennis Benson and MCF Chaplain Stev e Hokon son, in the Moors' 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We affirm in part an d reverse and remand in part.

The Moors' claims relate to defendants' name-change policy, and t o defe ndants' closure of their group account. We discuss these claim s separately.

### -2- I. Name-change policy

The Moors claimed defendants violated their rights under the Firs t Amendment and Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000b b to 2000bb-4, by refusing to allow inmates to append the suffix El or Bey to t heir names unless an inmate legally changes his name pursuant t o Minnes ota statutory procedure. The Moors alleged that their religio n dictates the use of the suffixes and forbids them from going to court to change their names accordingly. They sought inj unctive relief, requesting onlythat they not be punished for signing their name with the El or Bey suffix in conjunction with their prison number without first obtaining a legal n ame change. Along with an affidavit detailing their religiou s ten ets regarding the use of the El or Bey suffix, the Moors submitte d documentation from the national MSTA, which stated:

A me mber is not to go into court to have a nam e chan ge, because you are not changing your name

. You are proclaiming something you always have been by b eing born a Moorish American. One is not t o change any existing records, but do all ne w business in the name of El or Bey, and put you r nat ionalitydown or make it known, when and wher e it is called for.
Defendants moved for summary judgmen t and submitted evidence showing that MCF recognizes all court-approved name changes and that an inmate's failur e to use his correct legal name constitutes misrepresentation, a violation of MCF disciplinary rules. The associate warden in charge o f operations attested that requiring inmates to use only their legal names furthered institutional operating and security interests such as conductin g inm ate counts; taking attendance at work areas, group meetings, the la w library, and for medical services; ensuring accu rate inmate identification cards; preventing compatibility problems between inmates; and

### -3-

monitoring the mail system. The associate warden also attested that havin g to change institutional records to recognize an inmate's new name whenever the inmate demanded it would burden defendants.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants, conc luding that the Moors had not shown that the prohibition on obtaining a legal nam e change was a requirement of their faith. The court concluded that the nam e change policy did not substantially burden the Moors and that even if it did, the policy was the least restrictive means for fulfilling a compellin g governmental interest.

We rev iew a grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the sam e standard as the distr ict court. Earnest v. Courtney , 64 F.3d 365, 366-67 (8th Cir. 1995) (per curiam). We conclude that summary judgment wa s improp er. The Moors produced unrebutted evidence that their religio n forbids them from going to court to obtain a legal name change before usin g the El or Bey suffix. See In re Young , No. 93-2267, slip op. at 20-21 (8t h Cir. May 6, 1996) (threshold inquiry of RFRA cla im is whether governmental action substantially burdens religious practice; definition of substantial burde n); Brown-El v. Harris , 26 F.3d 68, 69-70 (8th Cir. 1994) (polic y restri cts free exercise if it coerces inmate into violating religiou s belief); see also Sal aam v. Lockhart , 905 F.2d 1168, 1170 (8th Cir. 1990) (noting importance of personal name), cert. denied , 498 U.S. 1026 (1991); cf. Azeez v. Fairman , 795 F.2d 1296, 1297, 1300 (7th Cir. 1986) (n o evidence that use of "committed" name until statutory name change complete d violated inmates' religious beliefs).

Fu rther, defendants' evidence failed to show how accommodating th e Moors' request would implicate the security and administrative concern s defendants identified. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1 (b); Turner v. Safley , 482 U.S. 78, 89-91 (1987); O'Lone v. Estate of

### -4-

Shabazz , 482 U.S. 342, 349 (1987). Although we give deference to prison officials' judgments regarding security concerns, see, e.g. , Goff v. Nix , 803 F.2d 358, 361-63 (8th Cir. 1986), cert. denied , 484 U.S. 835 (1987), the associate warden's attestations do not expla in how allowing inmates to append suffixes to their committed names--when s igning them in conjunction with their prison num bers--would create identification problems. We note that the M oors did not request that defendants employ the suffixes o r chang e prison records, so defendants' evidence regarding administrativ e burden is inapposite. Cf. Salaam , 905 F.2d at 1 169-70, 1173-75 (defendant misconstrued scope of inmate request, which did not include request prison
cease using inmate's committed name; prison required to add changed name to clothing, prison records, and mailroom list); Barrett v. Commonwealth of Vi rginia , 689 F.2d 498, 503 (4th Cir. 1982) (prison authorities no t required to change and reorganize records, but c ould not condition receipt of be nefits and services on inmates not using changed names); Akbar v

. Canney , 634 F.2d 339, 340 (6th Cir. 1980) (per curiam) (prison officials not required to change all records to reflect changed name, and no evidenc e of denial of any prison benefit because of use of changed name), cert
. denied , 450 U.S. 1002 (1981).

Thus, summary judgment on this claim was improper as to defendan t Benson. Summary judgment was proper as to defen dant Hokonson, however, as the Moors have offered no evidence connecting him to the name-chang e policy. See Martin v. Sargent , 780 F.2d 1334, 1338 (8th Cir. 1985); see also D icken v. Ashcroft , 972 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1992) (court o f appeals may affirm district court on any basis supported by the record).

II. Group Account

The Moors claimed that defendants wrongfully closed the MSTA grou p account and transferr ed the money in the MSTA group account to the prison chaplain's fund, violating their First Amendment,

### -5-

RFRA, and due process rights. The Moors also claimed, with a supporting affida vit, that their equal protection rights were violated because a Native American group was allowed a group account, which it used to pay fo r a "sweat lodge, Pipe & Drums ceremony" used for religious purposes. They sought the reinstatement of their group account and the return of th e money. Subsequently, the Moors moved for an order compelling discovery, indicating that they sought information on why the Native American group was allowed to use a group account to pay for its religious needs.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, noting that all inmat e religious group accounts were closed and arguing that the Moors were not similarly situated to the non-religious, cultural Native American group, which was allowed to maintain a group account.
The district court granted summary judgment to defendants. As to the Moors' equal protection claim, the court conclud ed that closing the Moors' group account did not violate their rights because all religious grou p accounts were closed and the Moors had offered nothing to support thei r contention that they were similarly situated to the Native American group. The court also denied the Moors' discovery motion.

Th e district court correctly concluded that defendants' closure o f the M oors' account did not violate their First Amendment, RFRA, or du e process rights. Summary judgment was improper, however, on the Moors ' equ al protection claim. The Moors offered undisputed evidence that th e Native American group uses its account for religious purposes. Defendants ' repres entation that the Native American group is "cultural" rather tha n "rel igious" does not resolve the question whether the two groups ar e similarly situated with respect to the maintenance and use of grou p accounts for religious purposes. Cf. Abdullah v. Gunter , 949 F.2d 1032, 1037 (8th Cir. 1991) (summary judgment on equal protection claim

### -6-

approp riate where undisputed that all inmates denied permission to mak e religious contributions from their inmate accounts), cert. denied , 504 U.S

. 930 (1992). Accordingly, the district court should not have denied th e Moors' motion to comp el discovery. See Kinkead v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co. , 49 F.3d 454, 457 (8th Cir. 1995) (standard of review).

III. Conclusion
With resp ect to the Moors' claims regarding the name-change policy,
we affirm as to Hokonson and reverse and remand as to Benson. We affirm with respect to the Moors' First Amendment, RFRA, and due process claims reg arding the closure of their group account. As to the Moors' equa l protection claim rega rding the closure of their group account, we reverse and remand. We also recommend the district cour t consider the standing of each of the three named plaintiffs with respect to each of the remaining claims.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.