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. 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. Thus, appellant had no right to call 

the victim as a witness or to learn the identity of another inmate who 

witnessed the assault. See id. While appellant discussed the possibility of 

calling character witnesses to testify that he was not homosexual, the 

prison disciplinary hearing officer considered the substance of the 

testimony that the witnesses would have offered and found that the 

testimony was not relevant because it would not have disproved that 

appellant assaulted his cellmate. Thus, appellant did not demonstrate 

that he was denied the opportunity to call witnesses or that the lack of 

character witnesses at his hearing deprived him of due process. To the 

extent that appellant challenged the evidence of his guilt, due process 

requires only that "some evidence" must support the disciplinary hearing 

officer's decision; this "some evidence" standard is met if there was "any 

. . . continued 

challenges were 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 interests 

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 41f0(4, 
evidence in the record that could support the conclusion" of the hearing 

officer and does not require the district court to examine the entire record, 

make any credibility assessments, or weigh any of the evidence. 

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). Here, some evidence 

supported the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, id. at 

455, and the sanctions imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual 

punishment. Therefore, appellant failed to demonstrate that he was 

entitled to relief. Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

/ , J. 

Hardesty 

Douglas 

'°61r1,P'‘ J. 

J. 

Cherry 

3We 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 e 
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge 

Kenneth J. Schiro 

Attorney General/Ely 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 4 

(0) 1947A costfp