NOTICE: Seventh Circuit Rule 53(b)(2) states unpublished orders shall not be cited or used as precedent except to support a claim of res judicata, collateral estoppel or law of the case in any federal court within the circuit.
Jason E. MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
Herb NEWKIRK, Superintendent of the Maximum Control Complex,
et al., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 95-3943.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Submitted May 7, 1996.*
Decided May 10, 1996.
Before FLAUM, EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
Jason Morales seeks review of the prison disciplinary proceeding against him under habeas corpus law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Morales was charged with four separate rulе violations: assaulting a correctional officer by kicking the officer in the face, possessing a deadly weapon (a handle-shaped rod broken off a bed frame, approximately twelve inches in length and sharpened at one end, was discovered in his cell), destruction of state property (Morales had used the rod tо chip away the mortar between the bricks of his cell), and attempted escape (by loosening the bricks whеre the mortar had been removed). The Conduct Adjustment Board (CAB) found him guilty and sanctioned him to one year of disciplinаry segregation and 48 days lost good time credit for the battery charge, one year disciplinary segregation and 100 days lost good time credit for the weapons charge, $88 and other expenses as restitution for the destructiоn of property charge, and two years disciplinary segregation and 150 days lost good time credit for the esсape charge.1
On appeal, Morales first argues that the reinstatement of the disciplinary charges аfter they were dismissed for failure to hold a timely hearing violated the Double Jeopardy Clause. This claim is without merit. Thе Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause, applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, "proteсts against three distinct abuses: a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal; a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction; and multiple punishments for the same offense." United States v. Halper,
Morales next argues that his right tо due process was violated because the disciplinary proceeding was not held within seven days as required by Indiana regulations. However, a violation of a state regulation does not necessarily implicate a federal liberty interest. Estelle v. McGuire,
Morales also suggests that the disciplinary proсeeding violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Equal Protection Clause forbids the state from treating one group of persons, including groups of inmates in a prison, arbitrarily worse than another. Anderson v. Romero,
Finally, Morales argues that the district court violated Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) by insufficiently articulating its finding of facts. The pertinent facts in this case were not in dispute. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52 does not apply to this case because the distriсt court dismissed Morales' complaint. Rule 52 applies only to bench trials. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, Notes of Advisory Committee оn Rules Adoption.
AFFIRMED.
Notes
After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral argument is unnеcessary, and the appeal is submitted on the briefs and record. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a); Cir.R. 34(f)
On April 24, 1996, while this case was рending on appeal, the President signed into law the "Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996." Pub.L. No. 104-132, 110 Stat. 1214. Title I of this Act significantly curtails the scope of federal habeas corpus review. We need not decide in this casе to what extent these amendments apply to habeas petitions pending when the Act was signed into law becаuse, even under the more expansive scope of review permitted prior to the Act, the Appellant in this case would not have been entitled to federal habeas corpus relief