(stating that expiration of a defendant's sentence renders any issue concerning computation of the sentence moot).

As a separate and independent ground to deny relief, appellant's petition is procedurally barred. This is appellant's third challenge to the November 18, 2009, disciplinary hearing. On September 21, 2011, appellant filed his first petition in district court case number C223092. On March 07, 2012, appellant attempted to file a petition challenging the same disciplinary hearing in district court case number C214506, the instant case, but the district court clerk correctly docketed the petition in a separate civil case number, A657750. See NRS 34.730(3).

Both of those petitions were denied. Appellant only appealed the denial of his petition in district court case number C223092 but voluntarily withdrew that appeal prior to resolution on appeal. Hughes v. State, Docket No. 60457 (Order Dismissing Appeal, December 12, 2012).

Thereafter, appellant filed the instant petition in case number, C214506.

We conclude that appellant's petition was successive because he had previously filed two post-conviction petitions for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the same disciplinary hearing, and it constituted an abuse of the writ as he raised claims new and different from those raised in his previous petition. See NRS 34.810(2). Appellant's petition was procedurally barred absent a demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. NRS 34.810(3). Appellant failed to demonstrate good cause and

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A 11101WIKMMENIMIkiii ' EINEM WNW prejudice to overcome the procedural bars, and therefore, the district court did not err in denying the petition. 2 Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.'

Gibbons

1A-R J.

Douglas

J.

Saitta cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge Michael Ray Hughes Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk 2We note that that the district court erroneously denied the petition based on the law-of-the-case doctrine and res judicata; nevertheless, we affirm the district court's decision to deny the petition for the reasons discussed in this order. Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970).

'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 (0) 1947A

ENIESSNEMEMINIFiE