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
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.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Henley v. Johnson, 885 F.2d 790 (11th Cir. 1989)…sions of this article. . This Court has held that the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act’s classification of prisoners serving sentences of ten years or more does not violate the equal protection clause or due process clause. Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F. 2d 526 (11th Cir.1988). . Section 14-9-1, which was repealed effective May 19, 1980, did not prohibit the earning of good time for sentences of ten years or more. . During oral argument, counsel for Respondent brought to the attention of this Court that…
-
Cook v. Wiley, 208 F.3d 1314 (11th Cir. 2000)…136 F. 3d 1032, 1036 (5th Cir.1998) (explaining that classifying “inmates based on the type of criminal offenses for which they have been convicted does not implicate a suspect class”), it is subject to a rational basis review, see Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F. 2d 526, 527 (11th Cir.1988). Under a rational basis review, the BOP’s interpretation of “nonviolent offense,” embodied in Regulation 550.58 and P.S. 5162.02(7), would violate the Equal Protection Clause only if it is not rationally related to any legitim…
-
Moss v. Clark, 886 F.2d 686 (4th Cir. 1989)…volves a fundamental right or a suspect class. [*690] No strict standard of review is implicated here. See McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 270, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 1059, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973). Prisoners are not a suspect class. See Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F. 2d 526, 527 (11th Cir.1988). The status of incarceration is neither an immutable characteristic, Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686, 93 S.Ct. 1764, 1770, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973), nor an invidious basis of classification, Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202…
Previewing 3 of 5 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Hodel v. Indiana, 452 U.S. 314 (U.S. 1981)