Ellis (Howard) v. State ( 2014 )

 NRS 34.810(3). Moreover, because the State specifically pleaded laches,
appellant was required to overcome the rebuttable presumption of
prejudice. NRS 34.800(2).
First, appellant claimed that he had good cause due to an
inadequate prison law library. Appellant failed to demonstrate that any
inadequacies of the prison law library deprived him of meaningful access
to the courts. See Bounds ix Smith, 430 U.S. 817, 828 (1977), limited by
Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 354-56 (1996). Appellant's previous proper
person documents filed in the district court and in this court indicate that
his access to the courts was not improperly limited by restrictions on use
of the prison law library, lack of availability of legal materials, or due to
prison law library policies. Accordingly, appellant failed to demonstrate
that official interference caused him to be unable to comply with the
procedural bars. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252, 71 P.3d 503,
506 (2003).
Second, appellant claimed that his claims were not reasonably
available prior to the filing of this petition. However, appellant's claims
challenging the judgment of conviction were reasonably available to be
raised in a timely petition, and therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate
good cause to excuse the procedural bars. See id.Next, appellant challenged conditions he will face when placed
on parole. A petition for a writ of habeas corpus was not the proper
vehicle to raise a challenge to parole conditions. See Bowen v. Warden,
100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984). Therefore, appellant is not
entitled to relief for this claim.
Finally, appellant challenged a prison disciplinary hearing in
which he asserted he lost good-time credits. This claim challenged the
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I )41 A e
computation of time served and cannot be raised in a post-conviction
petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of the
judgment of conviction. See NRS 34.738(3). However, the denial of this
claim would be without prejudice, allowing appellant to properly and
separately file a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus
challenging the computation of time served in the county in which he is
incarcerated. See NRS 34.724(1); NRS 34.738(1). Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
, J.
Hardesty
J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge
Howard L. Ellis
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
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
KU 1047A