MILLER v. BACA (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Miller claims the district court erred by denying his petition because his due process rights were violated during a prison disciplinary hearing and the violation resulted in the loss of his ability to earn work credits. The district court found that Miller did not lose any credits, there were no liberty interests at stake, and his challenge to the outcome of the disciplinary hearing was a challenge to the conditions of his confinement. The district court's findings are supported by the record on appeal, and we conclude the district court did not err by denying Miller's petition, because challenges to the conditions of a petitioner's confinement are not cognizable in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See NRS 34.720; Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   To the extent Miller claims the district court erred by failing to consider his “response in traverse,” we conclude he has not demonstrated error because he was not allowed to file any further pleadings without an order from the court. See NRS 34.750(5).The Honorable Jerome T. Tao did not participate in the decision in this matter.