Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03185/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03185-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 

---

F LED 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAtOSitcd Stat~s Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

RAYMOND FOWLER, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v. 

ROBERT SCOTT and D. L. PETERS, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ov 3 0 1990 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3185 

(D.C. No. 90-3168-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, BALDOCK, and EBEL, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

This is an appeal of a civil rights complaint filed in the 

court below pursuant to 42 u.s.c. § 1983. The plaintiff/appellant 

claims that he was charged with duplicative offenses by prison 

disciplinary officials in violation of the double jeopardy clause 

and that numerous other constitutional violations have occurred. 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3185 Document: 010110093932 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 1 
The district court dismissed the appellant's double jeopardy 

claim, ruling that double jeopardy protection does not apply to 

prison disciplinary proceedings. We grant the plaintiff 

permission to proceed in forma pauperis. 

We agree with the district court's decision that double 

jeopardy protection does not apply to prison disciplinary 

proceedings. In Breed v. Jones, 421 U.S. 519 (1975), the Court 

held that "the risk to which the term jeopardy refers is that 

traditionally associated with actions intended to authorize 

criminal punishment to vindicate public justice." Id. at 528 

(quotations omitted). In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) 

the Court held that "[p]rison disciplinary proceedings are not 

part of a criminal prosecution." Id. at 556. Therefore, under 

Breed and Wolff, we hold that the district court was correct in 

dismissing the appellant's double jeopardy claim. 

The district court, however, did not address itself to the 

appellant's other claims. However, appellant's other claims are 

couched only in broad conclusory language bereft of any operative 

facts and as such they are frivolous on their face. See Green v. 

White, 616 F.2d 1054, 1055 (8th Cir. 1980) (per curiam). 

Accordingly, it was not error to dismiss the remainder of 

appellant's complaint. Therefore, we AFFIRM the district court's 

dismissal of appellant's complaint. The mandate shall issue 

for,thwith. 

Entered for the Court 

David M. Ebel 

Circuit Judge 

Appellate Case: 90-3185 Document: 010110093932 Date Filed: 11/30/1990 Page: 2