Morris (Brent) v. Warden

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: June 11, 2014
• Docket: 64755
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

was deprived of due process because he did not receive timely notice of the

charges, he was not allowed to present witnesses, there was not some

evidence to support the charges, the hearing officer was biased, and the

sanctions amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 2

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. 3 Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974).

Appellant failed to demonstrate that the hearing officer was not impartial.

Some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing

officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and the sanctions

2 To the extent that appellant challenged his placement in disciplinary segregation, appellant's challenge was 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 interest 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).

3 1nregards to the latter, appellant did not request specific witnesses at the preliminary inquiry, and the hearing officer stipulated to the substance of the testimony that would have been presented.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A cigDo imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment. Accordingly,

we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 4

Adam J. Pickering

cOir , J. Parraguirre

J. Saitta

cc: Hon. James E. Wilson, District Judge Brent Morris Attorney General/Carson City Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk

4 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 ew