In Neal v. Shimoda (9th Cir. 1997) 131 F.3d 818, two prison inmates (Neal and Martinez) brought federal civil rights suits (42 U.S.C. 1983) claiming that state legislation forcing them to admit that they committed sex offenses in order to participate in a Sex Offender Treatment Program (SOTP) as a precondition of parole eligibility violated their privilege against self-incrimination. (Neal, supra, at pp. 821-823, 832.) The district court granted summary judgment to defendant prison officials and SOTP administrators, and the Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that "no admission made by Neal or Martinez could be used against them in a future criminal proceeding." ( Id. at pp. 832-833.) The court explained: "Martinez has already been convicted of the attempted rape and has expressed no intention to collaterally attack the conviction. Double jeopardy considerations would preclude any admission by Martinez regarding the attempted rape from being used against him. For Neal, the terms of his plea agreement dismissing the sex offenses contained in his indictment prohibit the State from prosecuting him in the future for those incidents. Neal has offered no indication that he will ever move to withdraw his plea. Therefore, the possibility of any admission to those sex offenses incriminating him in the future is no more than a remote and speculative possibility which is insufficient to trigger the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination." (Neal, supra, 131 F.3d at p. 833.)