Washington v. Nev. Dept. of Corrections
This text of Washington v. Nev. Dept. of Corrections (Washington v. Nev. Dept. of Corrections) 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.
Opinion
available, however, when an adequate and speedy legal remedy exists. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). A review of appellant's proper person appeal statement and the appellate record reveals that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's writ petition. City of Reno, 119 Nev. at 58, 63 P.3d at 1148. Namely, the district court determined that appellant had an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, the district court determined that evidence supported the disciplinary action taken against appellant and that, as such, respondent did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion. NRS 34.160; International Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons
cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge Bernard Washington Attorney General/Carson City Carson City Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) 1947A 2
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Washington v. Nev. Dept. of Corrections, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-v-nev-dept-of-corrections-nev-2013.