Garcia v. State, Dept. of Corrections ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                               Respondents filed a motion to dismiss in the district court,
    arguing that Garcia had failed to exhaust all of her administrative
    remedies and that her complaint was barred by the statute of limitations.
    The district court granted the motion, finding that Garcia's claims were all
    subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which the district court found
    had expired on November 17, 2012, two years from the date respondents
    alleged the prison responded to Garcia's grievance regarding the assault.
    This appeal followed.
    This court reviews de novo an order granting an NRCP
    12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, accepting all factual allegations in the
    complaint as true, and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs favor.
    Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas,    
    124 Nev. 224
    , 227-28, 
    181 P.3d 670
    , 672 (2008). We have reviewed appellant's civil proper person appeal
    statement, respondent's response, appellant's reply,' and the record on
    appeal, and we conclude that the district court erred in granting
    respondents' motion to dismiss.
    Respondents concede in their response to Garcia's proper
    person appeal statement that there was no failure to exhaust
    administrative remedies by Garcia. Thus, the only remaining issue on
    appeal is whether Garcia's complaint was filed before the expiration of
    the statute of limitations. The district court found that all of Garcia's
    claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations.          See NRS
    'Appellant has filed proper person motions to strike respondents'
    response and to file a reply. Having considered the motions, we deny the
    motion to strike respondents' response and grant the motion to file a reply.
    The clerk of the court shall file the proper person reply provisionally
    received in this court on April 14, 2014.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A    eD
    11.190(4)(c) and (e). But respondents argue that although Garcia's
    complaint was received by the clerk on October 8, 2012, because the
    motion to proceed in forma pauperis was not granted until December 5,
    2012, and the statute governing in forma pauperis applications does not
    toll the time for plaintiffs to file their complaints, Garcia's complaint was
    not filed until December 5 and was therefore time-barred.
    In Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 
    111 Nev. 1367
    ,
    1371, 
    904 P.2d 1039
    , 1042 (1995), this court stated that, where the
    district court clerk has received a complaint and motion to proceed in
    forma pauperis from a plaintiff, "for statute of limitations purposes, the
    complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt
    by the clerk of the district court." Garcia's complaint therefore should
    have been considered filed on October 8, 2012, for statute of limitations
    purposes. Because the complaint was therefore filed less than two years
    from the date of the alleged October 25, 2010, sexual assault, and less
    than two years from the date the prison responded to Garcia's grievance,
    the district court erred in granting respondents' motion to dismiss
    Garcia's complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations.
    For the foregoing reasons, we therefore
    ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
    REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
    this order.
    Hardesty
    Jc            (45'
    Douglas                                      Cherry
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
    Karisma Garcia
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    4
    (0) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 64210

Filed Date: 5/14/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021