FERNANDEZ MORALES v. NAJERA (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petition, Fernandez-Morales claimed the prison disciplinary process—specifically, his placement in disciplinary segregation—violated his right to due process because there was insufficient evidence to support the findings reached by the hearing committee. Fernandez-Morales additionally claimed the hearing committee failed to consider his mental health history prior to placing him in disciplinary segregation.

Fernandez-Morales’ claims challenging the prison disciplinary proceedings were not cognizable in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus because Fernandez-Morales did not lose any credits and the claims challenged the conditions of his confinement.¹ See NRS 34.720; NRS 34.724(1); Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984) (“[A] petition for writ of habeas corpus may challenge the validity of current confinement, but not the conditions thereof.”). Although the district court erroneously denied Fernandez-Morales’ petition on the merits without first determining whether his claims were cognizable under NRS 34.720 and NRS 34.724(1), we nevertheless conclude the district court properly denied the requested relief because the petition should have been dismissed. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). According, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The record reflects that the hearing committee initially sanctioned Fernandez-Morales to one year of disciplinary segregation, a loss of sixty statutory credits, and a referral for possible criminal charges. However, following an appeal and second disciplinary hearing, Fernandez-Morales pleaded guilty to a lesser charge. He received credit for time served in disciplinary segregation, and the Nevada Department of Corrections reinstated his statutory credits.