Grandon v. State

Nevada Supreme Court

Grandon v. State

DecidedJanuary 14, 2016

Docket67917

StatusUnpublished

This text of Grandon v. State (Grandon v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Grandon v. State, (Neb. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL D. GRANDON, No. 67917 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND CLARK FILED COUNTY, NEVADA, JAN I 4 2016 Respondents. TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK F SUPREME COURT BY - ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE DEPUTY CLERK

This is a pro se appeal from district court orders granting motions to dismiss in a tort and civil rights action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ronald J. Israel, Judge. Having considered appellant's appeal statement and the record on appeal, we perceive no error in the district court's decision dismissing appellant's complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (stating that 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); Day v. Zubel, 112 Nev. 972, 977, 922 P.2d 536, 539 (1996) ("The appropriate accrual date for the statute of limitations is a question of law only if the facts are uncontroverted."). Appellant stated in his complaint that his criminal case was dismissed with prejudice on January 28, 2009. The statute of limitations for his claims therefore commenced on that date. Day, 112 Nev. at 977-78, 922 P.2d at 539 (holding that the statute of limitations for tort and civil rights claims commences upon the dismissal of criminal charges with prejudice). As appellant did not file his complaint until May 29, 2012, more than two years after the statute of limitations commenced for his claims, the district court correctly determined that SUPREME COUFFE OF NEVADA

(0) •947A (0-012G1 appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. NRS 11.190(4)(e); see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985) (holding that a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by the forum state's personal injury statute of limitations). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Harde Ay

Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Michael D. Grandon Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A are,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL D. GRANDON, No. 67917 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND CLARK FILED COUNTY, NEVADA, JAN I 4 2016 Respondents. TRACIE K. LINDEMAN CLERK F SUPREME COURT BY - ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE DEPUTY CLERK

This is a pro se appeal from district court orders granting motions to dismiss in a tort and civil rights action. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Ronald J. Israel, Judge. Having considered appellant's appeal statement and the record on appeal, we perceive no error in the district court's decision dismissing appellant's complaint as barred by the statute of limitations. Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 670, 672 (2008) (stating that 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); Day v. Zubel, 112 Nev. 972, 977, 922 P.2d 536, 539 (1996) ("The appropriate accrual date for the statute of limitations is a question of law only if the facts are uncontroverted."). Appellant stated in his complaint that his criminal case was dismissed with prejudice on January 28, 2009. The statute of limitations for his claims therefore commenced on that date. Day, 112 Nev. at 977-78, 922 P.2d at 539 (holding that the statute of limitations for tort and civil rights claims commences upon the dismissal of criminal charges with prejudice). As appellant did not file his complaint until May 29, 2012, more than two years after the statute of limitations commenced for his claims, the district court correctly determined that SUPREME COUFFE OF NEVADA

(0) •947A (0-012G1 appellant's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. NRS 11.190(4)(e); see Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 276 (1985) (holding that a cause of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is governed by the forum state's personal injury statute of limitations). Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

J. Harde Ay

Saitta

J.

cc: Hon. Ronald J. Israel, District Judge Michael D. Grandon Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A are,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Grandon v. State, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grandon-v-state-nev-2016.

Opinion

J. Harde Ay

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack