constituted a continuing violation, such that the time for bringing his
claims had not expired, rendering dismissal on the bases advanced by
respondents improper. The district court ultimately granted the motion
and dismissed the case, holding that appellant had not filed a timely
administrative claim and that he likewise had not filed any grievances
pertaining to the claims at issue in his complaint. This appeal followed.
As directed, respondents have filed a response.
In the present matter, the district court's order dismissing
appellant's complaint contains no findings regarding the alleged threats of
retaliation that appellant argues rendered the grievance process
unavailable to him, and thus, does not address the impact of these alleged
threats on his failure to exhaust his administrative remedies in
accordance with NRS 41.0322(1). The challenged order also fails to
address appellant's assertion that the removal of interest from his
accounts constituted a continuing violation and whether that argument
renders any of the various administrative claim forms included in the
record timely and properly submitted, such that appellant may have
complied with the requirements of NRS 209.243(1). Having reviewed the
documents before us, including the civil proper person appeal statement
and response thereto, we conclude that the district court's failure to make
adequate findings and otherwise fully address these points in its dismissal
order has left us unable to determine whether, under the circumstances
presented here, dismissal of the underlying complaint was warranted. See
Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 228, 181 P.3d 670,
672 (2008) (concluding that a "complaint should be dismissed only if it
appears beyond a doubt that [the plaintiff] could prove no set of facts,
which, if true, would entitle [him or her] to relief'). Accordingly, we
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A zeto
reverse the district court's dismissal of the underlying action and remand
this matter for further proceedings.
It is so ORDERED. 1
Hardesty
Douglas
f ocR J.
Cherry
cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge
Percy Lavae Bacon
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk
'The clerk of this court is directed to file appellant's January 11,
2013, response to respondents' opposition to his request to file an errata.
In light of this order, all other requests for relief pending in this matter
are denied as moot.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A