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