Thornton v. Hunt, 87-7136

Decision Date15 August 1988
Docket NumberNo. 87-7136,87-7136
Citation852 F.2d 526
PartiesLeonard 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. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

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:

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. Sec. 1983, Thornton alleged that the Alabama Correctional Incentive Time Act (ACITA), Ala.Code Sec. 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.

To continue reading

Request your trial
34 cases
  • Moss v. Clark, Civ. A. No. 88-0361-AM.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 21 Octubre 1988
    ...members of a suspect class. Although the case law is sparse, most judicial decisions confirm this conclusion. See Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F.2d 526 (11th Cir.1988) (per curiam) (prisoner challenge to denial of good time benefits did not give rise to claim of violation of suspect classification......
  • Pryor-El v. Kelly
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 27 Junio 1995
    ...its reasons for treating an individual differently bear some rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose."); see Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1988) (Penal statute, which denied good time accumulation for prisoners sentenced to more than ten years, did not single out any......
  • Garnica v. Wash. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington
    • 13 Agosto 2013
    ...(8th Cir.1990)) (emphasis added). Prisoners are not a suspect class. Moss v. Clark, 886 F.2d 686 (4th Cir.1989); see Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F.2d 526, 527 (11th Cir.1988); Pryor v. Brennan, 914 F.2d 921 (7th Cir.1990). “Ramadan prisoners” are not a suspect class. Mr. Garnica has failed to all......
  • Brown v. Dillard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 20 Abril 2016
    ...suited for parole are actually granted this privilege. Cf. Conlogue v. Shinbaum, 949 F.2d 378 (11th Cir. 1991); see also Thornton v. Hunt, 852 F.2d 526 (11th Cir. 1988). Brown has therefore failed to present any evidence indicating arbitrary or capricious actions on the part of the Alabama ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT