Gresham v. State, Dep't of Corr.

Nevada Supreme Court

Gresham v. State, Dep't of Corr.

DecidedApril 12, 2018

Docket73621

StatusUnpublished

This text of Gresham v. State, Dep't of Corr. (Gresham v. State, Dep't of Corr.) 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

Gresham v. State, Dep't of Corr., (Neb. 2018).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL ALVIN GRESHAM, No. 73621 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND BRIAN WARD, ASSOCIATE FILE WARDEN, APR 12 e21118 C- Respondents. ctirRA. ROWN / OES REDF„SOURT

BY Urar

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review of an inmate grievance matter. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.' Having considered appellant's informal brief and the record, we conclude that there is no justiciable controversy to resolve in this appeal. Appellant concedes that NDOC properly denied his grievance but his appeal is simply seeking clarification as to which one of two reasons was the proper basis for its denial. Since clarifying this matter would not resolve any dispute concerning the parties' respective rights and obligations, we decline to give such clarification. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602,

'We conclude that a response to the informal brief is not necessary. SUPREME COURT NRAP 46A(c). Pursuant to NRAP 34(0(3), this appeal has been submitted OF NEVADA for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. (0) 1947A e 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) ("This court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment."). Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Atith Cup 4 4^ 14-ttl Hardesty , J. Pickering

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Michael Alvin Gresham Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A a

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 ALVIN GRESHAM, No. 73621 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND BRIAN WARD, ASSOCIATE FILE WARDEN, APR 12 e21118 C- Respondents. ctirRA. ROWN / OES REDF„SOURT

BY Urar

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review of an inmate grievance matter. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.' Having considered appellant's informal brief and the record, we conclude that there is no justiciable controversy to resolve in this appeal. Appellant concedes that NDOC properly denied his grievance but his appeal is simply seeking clarification as to which one of two reasons was the proper basis for its denial. Since clarifying this matter would not resolve any dispute concerning the parties' respective rights and obligations, we decline to give such clarification. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602,

'We conclude that a response to the informal brief is not necessary. SUPREME COURT NRAP 46A(c). Pursuant to NRAP 34(0(3), this appeal has been submitted OF NEVADA for decision based on the pro se brief and the record. (0) 1947A e 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) ("This court's duty is not to render advisory opinions but, rather, to resolve actual controversies by an enforceable judgment."). Accordingly, we ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

Atith Cup 4 4^ 14-ttl Hardesty , J. Pickering

cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Michael Alvin Gresham Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Carson City Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

2 (0) 1947A a

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gresham v. State, Dep't of Corr., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gresham-v-state-dept-of-corr-nev-2018.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack