administrative remedies. In particular, respondents asserted that
appellant had filed a number of grievances, with regard to this and other
issues, but had never filed an administrative claim form, as required by
NRS 209.243(1) (providing that a claim form must be filed within six
months of the alleged loss or injury). Alternatively, respondents argued
that appellant's complaint should be dismissed under NRCP 8(a), for
failure to contain a short, plain statement of entitlement to relief, or under
NRCP 4(i), for failure to timely serve process.
Appellant opposed the motion, arguing that he had filed an
administrative claim form and that the applicable administrative
grievance procedures were not available to him because he had been
threatened with retaliation if he filed further grievances. Appellant also
filed an amended complaint following the motion to dismiss, which,
although still somewhat lengthy and repetitive, contained a more limited
statement of appellant's claims than his previous complaint. Moreover,
appellant argued that he had properly served process. The district court
ultimately granted respondents' motion and dismissed• the case on the
ground that appellant had not filed a timely administrative claim form.
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 addition,
the district court did not address respondents' alternative arguments that
the complaint should be dismissed under NRCP 8(a) or NRCP 4(i). Thus,
having reviewed the documents before us, we conclude that the district
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A ce
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 reverse the district court's dismissal of the
underlying action and remand this matter for further proceedings.
It is so ORDERED.'
, J.
Hardest
ad,,te J.
Douglas
J.
cc: Hon. Abbi Silver, District Judge
Percy Lavae Bacon
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk
'With regard to appellant's September 20, 2012, motion for a
protective order, we deny the motion because such relief should be sought
in the district court in the first instance. In light of the resolution in this
order, we conclude that no further action is necessary with regard to
appellant's September 3, 2014, filing regarding judicial notice.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 1947A 441e4