Woods (Ian) v. Williams

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 17, 2014
• Docket: 65982
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellant failed to demonstrate a violation of due process because he did not contest that he received advance written notice of the charges and a written statement of the fact finders of the evidence relied upon and the reasons for disciplinary action, and appellant was not denied 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. Further, the hearing officer clearly considered appellant's medical evidence but rejected it as an excuse not to comply with administrative regulations. Appellant also failed to demonstrate that he was illiterate or that complex issues were involved and, therefore, failed to demonstrate that he "should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or if that is forbidden, to have adequate substitute aid in the form of help from the staff or from a sufficiently competent inmate designated by the staff." Id. at 570. Further, to the extent appellant claimed a due process violation in the prison appeals process, an institutional appeal is not a protected due process right. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486. Finally, as appellant conceded that he did not provide the urine sample as demanded, some evidence supports the decision by the hearing officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 472

...continued 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 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).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A )41:4P4 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), and therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Hardesty

J. Douglas

J.

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Ian Armese Woods Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) I947A