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, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Guy HUNT, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity; Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman, Defendants-Appellees
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
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.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(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")
Cited by 21 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.