Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman

Eleventh Circuit

Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman

852 F.2d 526, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11146, 1988 WL 77697

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedAugust 15, 1988

Docket87-7136

StatusPublished

Cited by22 cases

This text of 852 F.2d 526 (Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman, 852 F.2d 526, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11146, 1988 WL 77697 (11th Cir. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Leonard Thornton, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In his pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Thornton alleged that the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act (ACITA), Ala.Code § 14-9-41(e), violated the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation that the complaint be dismissed because ACITA, which denies “good time” accumulation for prisoners sentenced to more than ten years, was rationally related to the goal of controlling the early release or parole of serious offenders.

Thornton’s complaint challenged ACITA’s classification of prisoners sentenced to more than ten years. The statute does not single out a suspect class or impinge on a fundamental right. Thus, the provision is subject to the rational basis test under the equal protection clause. See Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331, 101 S.Ct. 2376, 2386-87, 69 L.Ed.2d 40 (1981). ACITA’s classification of prisoners serving sentences of more than ten years is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of preventing the early release of serious offenders. Therefore, the statute does not violate the equal protection clause or the due process clause.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Leonard Thornton, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In his pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Thornton alleged that the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act (ACITA), Ala.Code § 14-9-41(e), violated the equal protection clause and the due process clause of the United States Constitution. The district court adopted the magistrate’s recommendation that the complaint be dismissed because ACITA, which denies “good time” accumulation for prisoners sentenced to more than ten years, was rationally related to the goal of controlling the early release or parole of serious offenders.

Thornton’s complaint challenged ACITA’s classification of prisoners sentenced to more than ten years. The statute does not single out a suspect class or impinge on a fundamental right. Thus, the provision is subject to the rational basis test under the equal protection clause. See Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314, 331, 101 S.Ct. 2376, 2386-87, 69 L.Ed.2d 40 (1981). ACITA’s classification of prisoners serving sentences of more than ten years is rationally related to the legitimate purpose of preventing the early release of serious offenders. Therefore, the statute does not violate the equal protection clause or the due process clause.

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

Lawrence Moss v. Jeffrey J. Clark, Prisoners' Rights Program, Public Defender Service, Washington, D.C. Marline Jackson Laverne Anderson Michele Anderson Lillie Mae Bedney Phyllis Clemons Barbara Davis Sheila Davis Cynthia L. Fogg Rocina L. Garmany Edna Goolsby Deborah Hagans Vera Hardin Mavis Hobbs Irene Jenkins Shirley Y. Jones Justine Kinard Pauline Massenberg Deborah Morris Patricia Ann Paige Jarita Reaves Annie Robinson Flossie Robinson Saundra Sanders Rita Mae Scheer Connie Smith-Johnson Ayesha Stackhouse Mary Thomas Sandra Walker Tiajuana Washington Mary A. Wilson Mona R. Wilson, Amici Curiae, and Dc Correctional Department, John Michael Brand, Jr. v. Jeffrey J. Clark, Prisoners' Rights Program, Public Defender Service, Washington, D.C. Marline Jackson Laverne Anderson Michele Anderson Lillie Mae Bedney Phyllis Clemons Barbara Davis Sheila Davis Cynthia L. Fogg Rocina L. Garmany Edna Goolsby Deborah Hagans Vera Hardin Mavis Hobbs Irene Jenkins Shirley Y. Jones Justine Kinard Pauline Massenberg Deborah Morris Patricia Ann Paige Jarita Reaves Annie Robinson Flossie Robinson Saundra Sanders Rita Mae Scheer Connie Smith-Johnson Ayesha Stackhouse Mary Thomas Sandra Walker Tiajuana Washington Mary A. Wilson Mona R. Wilson, Amici Curiae

886 F.2d 686 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)

Kenneth Henley v. Willie E. Johnson, Warden

885 F.2d 790 (Eleventh Circuit, 1989)

Moss v. Clark

886 F.2d 686 (Fourth Circuit, 1989)

Jackson v. Thornburgh

702 F. Supp. 9 (District of Columbia, 1988)

Moss v. Clark

698 F. Supp. 640 (E.D. Virginia, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

852 F.2d 526, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11146, 1988 WL 77697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leonard-earl-thornton-v-guy-hunt-receiver-of-alabama-prison-system-in-ca11-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack