-
and he was denied an administrative appeal. The district court granted the State's motion to dismiss the petition for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. We conclude that the district court erred in failing to consider the petition on its merits, 2 but we affirm because the district court reached the correct result in dismissing the petition. See Wyatt v. State,
86 Nev. 294, 298,
468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970). Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process because he received: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) written statement of the fact finders of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action; and (3) an opportunity to present witnesses and evidence. Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974). Confrontation and cross-examination are not required in prison disciplinary proceedings because these procedures present "greater hazards to institutional interests."
Id. at 567-68. Some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, Superintendent v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 2Because statutory credits affect the computation of time served, appellant's petition was governed by the post-conviction provisions of NRS 34.720-.830. See NRS 34.724(2)(c). Those provisions do not condition the availability of habeas review on the exhaustion of administrative remedies. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A ''.-90K4616MIIMEN- 7-AZIEVAREMES5SEEMENZRZWOMMIERSKI y 455 (1985), and therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. 3 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4 u/1P6 J. Douglas J. Saitta 3 Tothe extent that appellant challenged the grievance system and the denial of an administrative appeal, his claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Bowen v. Warden,
100 Nev. 489,
686 P.2d 250(1984). 4We 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. 3 cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Anthony J. Burriola Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A .40. " k",2eor i
Document Info
Docket Number: 62552
Filed Date: 9/18/2013
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014