Opinion
No. 67069
04-14-2015
ADAM WYNN TINGLEY, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND WARDEN BACA, Respondents.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
This is an appeal from an order of the district court denying a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.
This appeal has been submitted for decision without oral argument, NRAP 34(f)(3), and we conclude that the record is sufficient for our review and briefing is unwarranted. See Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975).
On August 21, 2014, appellant Adam Tingley filed a post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court challenging a prison disciplinary hearing, which resulted in a finding of guilt of escape (MJ6). This was Tingley's second disciplinary hearing regarding the escape because his first disciplinary hearing was overturned during an administrative appeal. At the first disciplinary hearing, Tingley was referred for the statutory forfeiture of credits and forfeited 129 days. These credits were not restored between the two hearings. Approximately three months after being found guilty again, the Nevada Department of Corrections restored 101 days of credit. While Tingley was referred for the statutory loss of credits after his second disciplinary hearing, there is no evidence in the record that he lost any credits after that hearing.
In his petition, Tingley claimed that he was deprived of due process at his disciplinary hearing because he was told all 129 days of his statutory credit would be restored, the State prosecuted him while his appeal was pending, and he received a new prison sentence and was denied parole.
To the extent that Tingley challenged his placement in disciplinary segregation, restitution, his prosecution by the State, the imposition of a new prison term and denial of parole, Tingley's challenge was not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a disciplinary hearing. 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).
Tingley failed to demonstrate a violation of due process at his disciplinary hearing because he received: (1) advance written notice of the charges; (2) a 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). Therefore, Tingley failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
We have reviewed all documents that Tingley has submitted 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 Tingley 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.
--------
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
Adam Wynn Tingley
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City District Attorney
Carson City Clerk