McCormick v. Schofield, M.D.

 dismissal for failure to state a claim, accepting all of the factual
allegations in the complaint as true and drawing all inferences in favor of
the plaintiff).
As we explained in State Board of Parole Commissioners v.
Morrow, 127 Nev. „ 255 P.3d 224, 230 (2011), no constitutional due
process protections apply during parole hearings because inmates do not
have a liberty interest in being paroled. 1 And as appellant has not
identified any liberty interest at stake in a Psychological Review Panel
hearing, he has not demonstrated a right to constitutional due process in
such hearings. Cf. id. at , 255 P.3d at 228-29 (recognizing that the
Psychological Review Panel does not afford certain due process protections
in its hearings). Further, the Psychological Review Panel was not
required to provide appellant with a copy of the considered documents
under Nevada's open meeting law because those documents were
designated confidential. See NRS 241.020(5)(c) (explaining that a public
body does not have to provide copies of supporting material to the public if
those materials are confidential); NDOC AR 813 (1.8.1) (July 23, 2009)
(designating all documents considered by the panel confidential pursuant
to NRS 213.1075). Finally, while appellant argues that the Psychological
Review Panel respondents had a statutory duty under NRS 179A.100(7)(b)
to provide him with a copy of his file because it is a record of criminal
'As in Morrow, no statutory due process protections applied during
appellant's parole hearing because appellant's parole hearing took place
on June 3, 2009, during the Legislature's temporary suspension of the
statute's due process protections. See Morrow, 127 Nev. at , 255 P.3d
at 227 (describing when Nevada's statutory due process protections were
ineffective); see also American Civil Liberties Union of Nev. v. Cortez
Masto, 719 F. Supp. 2d 1258, 1260 (D. Nev. 2008).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
•;.•
history, he did not allege that he had complied with NRS 179A.100(7)(b)
by requesting a copy of that file. 2 See NRS 179A.100(7)(b) (providing that
a record of criminal history "must be disseminated by an agency of
criminal justice, upon request, to . . . Nile person who is the subject of the
record of criminal history. . .") (emphasis added). Thus, the district court
properly concluded that appellant failed to state a claim for the violation
of his due process rights. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3
, J.
Hardesty
Parraguirre
ChRA
Cherry
cc: Hon. Richard Wagner, District Judge
Michael McCormick
Attorney General/Carson City
Pershing County Clerk
2 Because appellant failed to allege that he had requested a copy of
his file, as required under NRS 179A.100(7)(b), we need not address
whether the Psychological Review Panel is an "agency of criminal justice"
or whether an inmate's parole file is a "record of criminal history."
3In light of this order, we need not consider appellant's arguments
regarding respondents' qualified and absolute immunity.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA 3
(0) 1947A
4)5 '