Opinion · Court of Appeals for the 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

Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Ala. Prison Sys., in His Off. Capacity Fred R. Smith, & Att’y Gen. Don Siegelman, 852 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1988)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1988-08-15
Topic
litigation

How later courts describe this case

  • classification denying “good time” credits to prisoners serving sentences greater than ten years is rationally related to legitimate purpose of preventing early release of serious offenders
  • wherein the court held that denial of good time to prisoners sentenced to more than ten years "[wa]s rationally related to the legitimate purpose of preventing the early release of serious offenders"

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
22 opinions
THORNTON v. HUNT,852 F.2d 526(11th Cir. 1988)
LEONARD EARL THORNTON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GUY HUNT, RECEIVER OF ALABAMA
PRISON SYSTEM, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY; FRED R. SMITH, AND ATTORNEY GENERAL
DON SIEGELMAN, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.
No. 87-7136.
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
August 15, 1988.
Page 527
Don Siegelman, Atty. Gen., Thomas R. Allison, P. David Bjurberg, Asst. Attys. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.
Before HILL, HATCHETT and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[1] The appellant, Leonard Thornton, appeals from the dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. In hispro secomplaint under42 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.

[2] 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.

[3] The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.