WILLIAMS v. OLIVER (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petition, Williams claimed the Nevada Department of Corrections erroneously interpreted NRS 209.4465 so as to deny him good time and work time credits. Williams neither alleged nor demonstrated that he had exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the petition.¹ See NRS 34.724(1) (“Any person ․ who, after exhausting all available administrative remedies, claims that the time the person has served pursuant to the judgment of conviction has been improperly computed may file a petition ․ to challenge the computation of time that the person has served.”); see also NRS 34.724(2)(c) (stating a postconviction habeas petition “[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, after all available administrative remedies have been exhausted”). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing Williams’ petition without prejudice. See NRS 34.810(2) (providing “[t]he court shall dismiss a petition that challenges the computation of time served ․ without prejudice if the court determines that the petitioner did not exhaust all available administrative remedies to resolve such a challenge as required by NRS 34.724”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that the statutory form for a time-computation petition includes questions relating to the grievance of claims, see NRS 34.733, and that Williams’ petition omitted several of the questions presented on the statutory form, including the questions related to the grievance of claims, see NRS 34.730(2)(a) (stating a postconviction habeas petition challenging the computation of time served must “be in substantially the form set forth in NRS 34.733”).