Villalovos (Tomas) v. State

was not substantial evidence of his guilt, the reliability of other inmates
was not independently evaluated, the hearing officer was not impartial,
and the amount of credits forfeited was in excess of that permitted. 2
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) 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. Some evidence supported the
decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer. Superintendent v. Hill,
472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Appellant failed to demonstrate that the
hearing officer was not impartial due to "command influence," particularly
in light of the fact that the hearing officer was assigned to a different
facility than the associate warden who drafted the notice of charges. The
amount of credits forfeited did not exceed that permitted by the Code.

2 To the extent that appellant challenged his placement in
disciplinary segregation and restitution, appellant's challenge was not
cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Bowen v. Warden,
100 Nev. 489, 686 P.2d 250 (1984); see also Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 486 (1995) (holding that the liberty interest protected by the Due
Process Clause will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which
imposes an atypical and signification hardship on the inmate in relation to
the ordinary incidents of prison life).

SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A

NEM=
N.D.O.C. A.R. 707.1(6)(H). Therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate
that he was entitled to relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3

cc: Hon. Gary Fairman, District Judge
Tomas Villalovos
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Ely
White Pine County District Attorney
White Pine County 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
(0) I947A