Gray v. State, 110519 NVCA, 78598-COA

Docket Nº:78598-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS C.J.
Party Name:JAMES E. GRAY, JR., Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;OFFENDER MANAGEMENT DIVISION (NDOC); BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN; AND JAMES DZURENDA, DIRECTOR, Respondents.
Judge Panel:Tao J., Bulla, J. Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge
Case Date:November 05, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

JAMES E. GRAY, JR., Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;OFFENDER MANAGEMENT DIVISION (NDOC); BRIAN WILLIAMS, WARDEN; AND JAMES DZURENDA, DIRECTOR, Respondents.

No. 78598-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 5, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF REVERSAL AND REMAND

GIBBONS C.J.

James E. Gray, Jr., appeals from an order of the district court denying a civil rights complaint. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge.

On July 10, 2018, Gray filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In his complaint, Gray contended he was entitled to money damages because the Nevada Department of Corrections violated his rights to due process and equal protection by failing to properly apply statutory credits toward his minimum parole eligibility date. The district, court construed Gray's civil rights complaint as a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied relief because Gray had already discharged the sentence at issue. On appeal, Gray argues the district court erred by construing his civil rights complaint as a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

A petitioner may utilize a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge a judgment of conviction or the computation of time served. See NRS 34.724(1); see also Bowen v. Warden, 100 Nev. 489, 490, 686 P.2d 250, 250 (1984) ("a petition for writ of habeas corpus may challenge the validity of current confinement, but not the conditions thereof). Gray did not raise either of those challenges; rather he sought money damages for alleged violations of his rights under the U.S. Constitution. Gray's claims did not fall within the scope of a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP