Schiro (Kenneth) v. Warden ( 2014 )

 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. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974).
Confrontation and cross-examination in prison disciplinary proceedings
are not required because these procedures present "greater hazards to
institutional interests." Id. at 567-68. Thus, appellant had no right to call
the victim as a witness or to learn the identity of another inmate who
witnessed the assault. See id. While appellant discussed the possibility of
calling character witnesses to testify that he was not homosexual, the
prison disciplinary hearing officer considered the substance of the
testimony that the witnesses would have offered and found that the
testimony was not relevant because it would not have disproved that
appellant assaulted his cellmate. Thus, appellant did not demonstrate
that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses or that the lack of
character witnesses at his hearing deprived him of due process. To the
extent that appellant challenged the evidence of his guilt, due process
requires only that "some evidence" must support the disciplinary hearing
officer's decision; this "some evidence" standard is met if there was "any
. . . continued
challenges were 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 interests
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).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A 41f0(4,
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion" of the hearing
officer and does not require the district court to examine the entire record,
make any credibility assessments, or weigh any of the evidence.
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Here, some evidence
supported the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, id. at
455, and the sanctions imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual
punishment. Therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was
entitled to relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
/ , J.
Hardesty
'°61r1
, '‘
P J.
Douglas
J.
Cherry
3 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 e
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge
Kenneth J. Schiro
Attorney General/Ely
White Pine County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A costfp