Opinion ID: 736750
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Due Process and Double Jeopardy Claims

Text: 16 Jacobs argues that the district court erred when it granted JMOL on his due process-double jeopardy claims. We disagree. 17 Double jeopardy does not apply to prison disciplinary proceedings. It is limited to criminal prosecutions and to some non-criminal procedures where the penalties imposed serve a punitive rather than remedial function. United States v. Halper, 490 U.S. 435, 448-49 (1989). Disciplinary proceedings are not criminal prosecutions. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974). Therefore, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not apply to repeated disciplinary hearings. See, e.g., Meeks v. McBride, 81 F.3d 717, 722 (7th Cir.1996); Gorman v. Moody, 710 F.Supp. 1256, 1266 (N.D.Ind.1989). Cf. United States v. Brown, 59 F.3d 102, 104-06 (9th Cir.1995) (prisoners can be tried for a single offense in both disciplinary and criminal settings without offending the Double Jeopardy Clause). 18 Nor did Jacobs offer sufficient evidence to show a due process violation. The Supreme Court has recently narrowed the scope of due process protection for prisoners. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). Under Sandin, even violation of mandatory state regulations does not support a due process claim, unless prison officials seek to impose atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Id.; see also Keenan v. Hall, 83 F.3d 1083, 1088 (9th Cir.1996) (must show major difference between the conditions for the general prison population and the segregated population to trigger due process rights). Jacobs' evidence did not meet these requirements. He did not point to any mandatory language in the Nev.Pen.Code. 4 Nor did he introduce evidence to show that his discipline imposed atypical conditions. Sandin, 115 S.Ct. at 2301 (30 days disciplinary segregation not atypical where no evidence that different from other kinds of segregation); Mujahid v. Meyer, 59 F.3d 931, 932 (9th Cir.1995) (14 days disciplinary segregation). 5 19