Cross (Anthony) v. Warden

disciplinary form III, failed to allow him to appeal, and found him guilty with inadmissible and insufficient evidence.

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) 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, some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary hearing officer, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 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. 2

Piekuu:tio , J.

Pickering

, J.

2We 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) 194?A (ats0 cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge

Anthony Cross

Attorney General/Carson City

White Pine County District Attorney

Attorney General/Ely

White Pine County Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A