Morris (Brent) v. Warden ( 2014 )

 was deprived of due process because he did not receive timely notice of the
charges, he was not allowed to present witnesses, there was not some
evidence to support the charges, the hearing officer was biased, and the
sanctions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 2
Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process
because he: (1) received advance written notice of the charges; (2) received
a written statement of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for
disciplinary action; and (3) was provided a qualified right to call witnesses
and present evidence. 3 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974).
Appellant failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was not impartial.
Some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing
officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and the sanctions
2 To the extent that appellant challenged his placement in
disciplinary segregation, appellant's challenge was not cognizable in a
petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489,
490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
486 (1995) (holding that liberty interest protected by the Due Process
Clause will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which imposes
an atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life).
3 1nregards to the latter, appellant did not request specific witnesses
at the preliminary inquiry, and the hearing officer stipulated to the
substance of the testimony that would have been presented.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A cigDo
imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly,
we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4
Adam J.
Pickering
cOir , J.
Parraguirre
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge
Brent Morris
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk
4 We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in
proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude
that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent
that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those
submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings
below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0)1947A ew