John Wesley Clutchette v. Raymond K. Procunier

OPINION ON REHEARING

We granted rehearing to assess the impact of Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 upon our prior opinion stating the constitutional protections due inmates of San Quentin prison in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings ( 497 F.2d 809 ). We modify our opinion in respect of loss of privileges, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and the right to counsel or a counsel-substitute in disciplinary proceedings (other than those involving infractions also punishable by state authorities as crimes) to conform it to the views expressed in Wolff . We reaffirm our prior opinion in all other respects because the remaining portions are in harmony with Wolff , or are related to issues untouched by Wolff .

*615 We are mindful of the Court’s encouragement of the continued development of prison disciplinary procedures and of experiments within the disciplinary context directed toward rehabilitative goals. We are particularly aware of the Court’s admonition that the minimum constitutional protections mandated by Wolff are not “graven in stone” ( 418 U.S. at 572 , 94 S.Ct. at 2982 ) and that the underlying…

(dissenting):

I would vacate and remand to the district court for a full fledged hearing in which the court would determine and judicially declare whether appellants’ disciplinary rules and regulations, currently in effect, meet the four constitutional requirements enunciated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). If the court finds that the procedural due process safeguards required by Wolff are recognized in the current rules and regulations, the case should be dismissed. Otherwise, the court should direct appellants to amend the rules and regulations to comply with such safeguards.

510 F.2d 613 John Wesley CLUTCHETTE et al., Appellees, v. Raymond K. PROCUNIER et al., Appellants. No. 71--2357. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Oct. 21, 1974. As Modified on Denial of Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Feb. 27, 1975. Certiorari Granted June 9, 1975. See 95 S.Ct. 2414 . William D. Stein, Deputy Atty. Gen. (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. William Bennett Turner (argued), San Francisco, Cal., for appellees. Before TUTTLE, * HUFSTEDLER, and KILKENNY, Circuit Judges. OPINION ON REHEARING HUFSTEDLER, Circuit Judge: 1 We granted rehearing to assess the impact of Wolff v. McDonnell (1974) 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 upon our prior opinion stating the constitutional protections due inmates of San Quentin prison in the context of prison disciplinary proceedings ( 497 F.2d 809 ). We modify our opinion in respect of loss of privileges, confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses, and the right to counsel or a counsel-substitute in disciplinary proceedings (other than those involving infractions also punishable by state authorities as crimes) to conform it to the views expressed in Wolff. We reaffirm our prior opinion in all…