Leonard Earl Thornton v. Guy Hunt, Receiver of Alabama Prison System, in His Official Capacity Fred R. Smith, and Attorney General Don Siegelman
Cases that cite this one
21 later published cases cite this decision. The 20 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Moss v. Clark (District Court, E.D. Virginia 1988)
- United States v. Wilihton Avenamo Morales (11th Cir. 2013)
- Parker v. Gorczyk (Vt. 1999)
- Thomas v. Scott (Tex. App. 1996)
- Wickliffe v. Clark (District Court, N.D. Indiana 1991)
- Reed v. Chambers (District Court, D. Nevada 2023)
- Garnica v. Washington Department of Corrections (District Court, W.D. Washington 2013)
- Shelly v. Alabama Department of Corrections (Ala. Crim. App. 2012)
- Cook v. Sivley (11th Cir. 2000)
- Cook v. Sivley (11th Cir. 2000)
- Whittington v. Wall (La. Ct. App. 1995)
- Pryor-El v. Kelly (District Court, District of Columbia 1995)
- Brooks v. State (Ala. Crim. App. 1993)
- William Scott Conlogue v. Dr. Marion Shinbaum, Director of Classification, Alabama Department of Corrections (11th Cir. 1991)
- Copeland v. Matthews (District Court, D. Kansas 1991)
- Van Poyck v. Dugger (United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida 1991)
- Harold Pryor and Gregory E. Dennis v. Edward J. Brennan (7th Cir. 1990)
- Kenneth Henley v. Willie E. Johnson, Warden (11th Cir. 1989)
- Moss v. Clark (4th Cir. 1989)
- Jackson v. Thornburgh (District Court, District of Columbia 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
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.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.