BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM v. JEREMY BEAN (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Bryan Phillip Bonham appeals from a district court order denying a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on November 1, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Carli Lynn Kierny, Judge.

Bonham argues the district court erred by denying his claims that his rights were violated during the prison disciplinary process. The district court concluded that Bonham's claims were not cognizable in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus because his claims challenged the conditions of confinement.

In his petition, Bonham claimed that the disciplinary process caused his “level’ in prison to change and that the change deprived him of his ability to earn work credits. He also claimed he was improperly deprived of property. Bonham did not lose any credits as a result of prison disciplinary proceedings. See NRS 34.724(2)(c). Rather, his claims challenged the conditions of his confinement. Thus, his claims were not cognizable in a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in state court. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984); see also Vickers v. Dzurenda, 134 Nev. 747, 748, 433 P.3d 306, 308 (Ct. App. 2018) (holding that a prisoner who does not work while in prison is not entitled to work credits). Therefore, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.