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