JAMES MENOR VALDEZ v. STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF STATE PRISON COMMISSIONERS THE HONORABLE JOSEPH LOMBARDO FRANCISCO AGUILAR JAMES DZURENDA WARDEN BREITENBACK AND NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

James Menor Valdez appeals from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review. First Judicial District Court, Carson City; James Todd Russell, Judge.

Valdez filed an informal grievance with respondent Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), arguing that NDOC incorrectly calculated his prison sentence when it improperly classified his deadly weapons enhancements as separate criminal convictions and used those classifications as a basis to impose consecutive sentences upon him. In response, NDOC issued an improper grievance memo, stating Valdez's grievance was not accepted because it raised a non-grievable issue as it pertained to a court decision, and NDOC does not control the charges or sentencing time given by a court.

Valdez subsequently filed a petition for judicial review from the improper grievance memo pursuant to NRS Chapter 233B, Nevada's Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Eventually, NDOC made a special appearance for the limited purpose of moving to dismiss Valdez's petition for judicial review. In its motion to dismiss, NDOC argued that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the petition, Valdez had not properly served any respondent in the case so jurisdiction had not attached, a prison grievance was not a contested case for purposes of judicial review, and NDOC was exempted from the APA under NRS 233B.039(1)(b). The district court granted the motion, and this appeal followed.

On appeal, Valdez challenges the dismissal of his petition for judicial review. The legislature enacted the APA to govern judicial review of many administrative decisions, permitting an aggrieved party to petition the district court for judicial review of a final agency decision in a contested case. NRS 233B.130(1). However, “[p]ursuant to the [APA] ․, not every administrative decision is reviewable.” Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424, 431, 282 P.3d 719, 725 (2012) (citation omitted). “Instead, only those decisions falling within the APA's terms and challenged according to the APA's procedures invoke the district court's jurisdiction.” Id.

NRS 233B.039(1)(b) provides that the Department of Corrections is “entirely exempted from the requirements” of the APA, except as otherwise provided in NRS 233B.039(7) (providing that NDOC “is subject to the provisions of this chapter for the purpose of adopting regulations relating to fiscal policy, correspondence with inmates and visitation with inmates of the Department of Corrections”), NRS 209.221 (Offender's Store Fund), and NRS 209.2473 (regulations regarding deductions relating to offender's accounts).

Here, Valdez sought judicial review of NDOCs rejection of his informal grievance which related to the computation of his sentence. As previously detailed, NRS 233B.039(1)(b) specifically exempts NDOC from the requirements of the APA subject to certain exceptions not relevant here. Accordingly, the district court properly dismissed Valdez's petition for judicial review. See Otto, 128 Nev. at 432, 282 P.3d at 725.

Valdez also contends the district court exhibited bias against him during the underlying proceedings. Having reviewed the record, we conclude relief is unwarranted based on this argument because Valdez has not demonstrated that any alleged bias was based on knowledge acquired outside of the proceedings, and the challenged decision does not otherwise reflect “a deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible.” See Canarelli v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 104, 107, 506 P.3d 334, 337 (2022) (internal quotation marks omitted) (explaining that, unless an alleged bias has its origins in an extrajudicial source, disqualification is unwarranted absent a showing that the judge formed an opinion based on facts introduced during official judicial proceedings, which reflects deep-seated favoritism or antagonism that would render fair judgment impossible); In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988) (providing that rulings made during official judicial proceedings generally “do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification”); see also Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009) (noting that the burden is on the party asserting bias to establish sufficient factual grounds for disqualification), overruled on other grounds by Romano v. Romano, 138 Nev. 1, 6, 501 P.3d 980, 984 (2022), abrogated in part on other grounds by Killebrew v. State ex rel. Donohue, 139 Nev. 401, 404-05, 535 P.3d 1167, 1171 (2023).

We, therefore,

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Insofar as Valdez raises arguments that are not specifically addressed in this order, we have considered the same and conclude that they do not present a basis for relief.