Hendking v. Smith, 84-7654
| Decision Date | 03 February 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-7654,84-7654 |
| Citation | 781 F.2d 850 |
| Parties | Willie C. HENDKING, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Fred V. SMITH, et al. Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit |
R. Boyd Miller, Nicholas Nagrich, Mobile, Ala., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Harry A. Lyles, Dept. of Correction, Bobby N. Bright, Montgomery, Ala., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.
Before TJOFLAT and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges, and DUMBAULD *, Senior District Judge.
Appellant's class action challenges on equal protection grounds 1 an Alabama prison rule which excludes from certain privileges inmates with a history of violent sex offenses. We affirm the judgment below in favor of appellees.
Alabama classifies convicts into five groups with respect to the threat to security which they present: maximum, close, medium, minimum, and community. A minimum security prisoner has an opportunity to enjoy certain privileges, and can be assigned to "honor farms" or leave the facility altogether on short-term passes. According to the testimony of two inmates, the fact of attaining minimum security status and the length of time such status is maintained has a favorable impact on consideration for parole.
On August 9, 1979, the Department of Corrections adopted a rule that no person with a history of a sex offense would be eligible for honor farm placement. In March, 1980 it was further ordained that inmates with a history of violent sex offense could not be accorded minimum security status. In a memorandum of August 19, 1981, Commissioner Joe S. Hopper defined the sex offender class as containing only persons convicted of the offense or committing the violent sex act during the commission of another crime:
The commission of a violent sex offense precludes an inmate from being placed in minimum or community custody. For clarification, this means the inmate was convicted of the offense or the violent sex act was committed during the commission of another crime. This does not mean that mentioning of the offense, which was eventually nolprossed or did not actually occur, has any bearing on these custodies.
The standard of equal protection analysis is well described by Judge Frank M. Johnson, Jr. in Zeigler v. Jackson, 638 F.2d 776, 779 (5th Cir. Unit B, 1981):
We agree with the district court that the equal protection clause does not require that all persons be treated identically. However, if distinctions between similarly situated individuals are to withstand an equal protection analysis, such distinctions must be reasonable, not arbitrary, and must rest on grounds having a fair and substantial relation to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aponte-Pinto v. Woods
...who were similarly situated to him. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 2331, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1992); Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1986). The plaintiff must also allege that the defendant acted with the intent to discriminate against him. See McClesky v. Kemp,......
-
Evans v. Ohio State Univ.
...of episodes producing the harmful consequences to the public resulting from the propensities of their nature." Hendking v. Smith (C.A.11, 1986), 781 F.2d 850, 852 (holding that a prison rule that excludes from certain privileges inmates with a history of violent sex offenses is reasonable a......
-
Boatman v. Fortenberry, Case No.: 3:17cv29/RV/EMT
...who were similarly situated to him. See Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 112 S. Ct. 2326, 2331, 120 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1992); Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850 (11th Cir. 1986). The plaintiff must also allege that the defendant acted with the intent to discriminate against him. See McClesky v. Kemp,......
-
Brown v. Dillard
...for release on parole.5 The decision of the parole board members demonstrates a reasonable and appropriate action, Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850, 853 (11th Cir. 1986), rationally related to the legitimate state interest of ensuring that only those inmates best suited for parole are actual......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...offenders visitation with children because rationally related to protecting children and furthering rehabilitation); Hendking v. Smith, 781 F.2d 850, 852 (11th Cir. 1986) (no equal protection violation where violent sex offenders’ denied eligibility for community release because rationally ......