First, the district court correctly determined that appellant's
claim alleging that his sentence must be reduced can only be brought in a
habeas corpus action. NRS 34.724(2)(c) (providing that a petition for
habeas corpus "[i]s the only remedy available to an incarcerated person to
challenge the computation of time that the person has served pursuant to
a judgment of conviction"); see Nonnette v. Small, 316 F.3d 872, 875 (9th
Cir. 2002) (recognizing that an inmate seeking to challenge the denial of
credits to reduce his sentence "must proceed in habeas corpus"). Thus,
respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on that claim.'
Second, the district court correctly determined that appellant's
claim regarding his prison account was subject to claim preclusion as
appellant had raised the same allegations in a justice court action. 2
Claim preclusion applies when (1) "the parties or their privies are the
same," (2) there is a valid final judgment, and (3) the subsequent action
involves "the same claims or any part of them that were or could have
been brought in the first case." Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124 Nev.
1048, 1054, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008). On appeal, appellant does not
dispute that the parties in the justice court action and the instant action
'In light of this conclusion, we need not consider the additional
grounds identified by the district court for granting judgment in favor of
respondents on this claim.
2 The district court order and civil proper person appeal statement
use the terms "res judicata," "issue preclusion," and "claim preclusion"
interchangeably. The use of "res judicata" was disavowed by this court in
favor of "issue preclusion" and "claim preclusion," with the latter two
being two distinct doctrines. See Five Star Capital Corp. v. Ruby, 124
Nev. 1048, 1054-55, 194 P.3d 709, 713 (2008). In this case, the district
court properly applied the test for claim preclusion in holding that the
appellant's claim was barred.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I947A - ce.
are privies of one another or that the justice court judgment is a valid final
judgment. Rather, he argues that claim preclusion cannot apply because
he did not raise constitutional arguments in the justice court action. The
fact that appellant has put forth new legal theories, in this case
constitutional theories, does not prevent the application of claim
preclusion when the new theories are based on the same conduct alleged
in the justice court case. See Alcantara ex rel. Alcantara u. Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., 130 Nev. „ 321 P.3d 912, 915 (2014) ("[A]ll claims
based on the same facts and alleged wrongful conduct that were or could
have been brought in the first proceeding are subject to claim preclusion."
(internal quotation marks omitted)). Thus, respondents were also entitled
to judgment as a matter of law on appellant's second claim.
Finally, appellant argues that respondents failed to make any
arguments in the district court regarding his request for injunctive relief.
Because respondents were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both
of appellant's claims, however, injunctive relief was inappropriate. See
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. u. Jafbros Inc., 109 Nev. 926, 928, 860 P.2d
176, 178(1993) ("The existence of a right violated is a prerequisite to the
granting of an injunction. Accordingly, an injunction will not issue to
restrain an act which does not give• rise to a cause of action." (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted)). For the foregoing reasons, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
'"we , J.
Pickering
J.
Parraguirre Saitta
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1047A e
cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge
Ferri11 Joseph Volpicelli
Attorney. General/Carson City
Pershing County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A we,