explaining that “[t]he words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms”
How later courts described this case
- explaining that “[t]he words ‘clearly established ... constitutional rights’ may not be used to read the defense of immunity out of federal tort law by the facile expedient of stating constitutional rights in the most general possible terms”
- holding that an administrative name change procedure did not substantially burden a prisoner’s free exercise rights
- In order to avoid eviscerating the defense of qualified immunity, court held that the right at issue "must be sufficiently particularized to put potential defendants on notice that their conduct probably is unlawful”
- the “right must be sufficiently particularized to put potential defendants on notice that their conduct probably is unlawful”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CAMPBELL, Senior District Judge,
dissenting in part.
I believe we should affirm the damage award given to Azeez and affirm Judge Baker’s ruling in' this area in doing so. In analyzing this issue, we must follow the principles set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) where it was held:
[Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as there conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person should have known.
On May 20, 1981 the Illinois Circuit Court issued a Writ of Mandamus, requested by Azeez, requiring prison officials to “hereinafter conduct all official business with [Azeez] using his new name.” To paraphrase Harlow, supra, I consider the writ to have clearly established Azeez’s constitutional right (at least in Illinois) to be referred to by his new Muslim name.' Indeed, on June 1,1981 Azeez was properly issued an identification card bearing only his Muslim name. Yet later that same day his card was inexplicably confiscated and he was given a card reading “Stanley Russell a/k/a Qaid Rafeez Azeez,” clearly indicating officials would still primarily “conduct official business” with him using his old name. Azeez stood up for his rights *1303 after they were clearly established by the Illinois courts. As a result he was denied all privileges for two weeks.
I believe prison officials had due notice from the Illinois courts about the rights of Azeez and callously (if not deliberately) violated them. This kind of callousness should not be condoned and I would affirm Judge Baker’s damage award as to Azeez.