BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM v. BRIAN WILLIAMS SR (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Brian Phillip Bonham appeals from a district court order granting a motion to dismiss his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed on October 16, 2023. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Nadia Krall, Judge.

Bonham argues that the district court erred when it found that his claims were not cognizable in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.¹ In his petition, Bonham claimed that his due process rights were violated due to delays in the prison disciplinary process, resulting in the loss of his “level one” status and his ability to earn work time credits.

A postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus may challenge the validity of current confinement, but not the conditions thereof. See Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984). Here, Bonham's petition sought postconviction relief due to his loss of level one status and ability to earn work time credits. However, challenges to the level of restriction imposed within a prison “speak[ ] only to the conditions of confinement,” id., and the record reflects that Bonham did not lose any credits as a result of prison disciplinary proceedings, see NRS 34.724(2)(c).

Thus, Bonham's claims challenged the conditions of his confinement, and as a result, those claims were not cognizable in a postconviction habeas petition. See NRS 34.720; NRS 34.724(1); Bowen, 100 Nev. at 490, 686 P.2d at 250; 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).² Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err by denying the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.³

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In the proceedings below, the district court determined that it could not treat Bonham's petition as a civil complaint in light of the supreme court's order dismissing appeal in Bonham v. Williams, No. 88477, 2024 WL 2338065 (Nev. May 22, 2024) (Order Dismissing Appeal) (dismissing Bonham's appeal from an order denying a preliminary injunction on grounds that the legislature has “enacted no provision allowing appeals from orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in postconviction habeas proceedings”). Because Bonham does not address that determination on appeal, he has forfeited any challenge thereto. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that issues an appellant does not raise on appeal are forfeited).

2.   Bonham argues that the district court abused its discretion by denying his motion to amend his petition, as amendment could have allowed him to cure the defects in his petition. We disagree. The district court has the discretion to allow a petitioner to file documents to supplement the initial petition, but the district court did not grant Bonham permission to file any additional documents, see NRS 34.750(5) (“No further pleadings may be filed except as ordered by the court.”); State v. Powell, 122 Nev. 751, 758, 138 P.3d 453, 457-58 (2006) (holding that the NRCP does not govern supplemental pleadings in postconviction habeas proceedings). Further, Bonham's proposed amendment also failed to state a cognizable claim under NRS 34.720. Thus, Bonham has not demonstrated that the district court abused its discretion in this regard.

3.   Insofar as Bonham raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief.