WILLIAMS v. FILSON (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petition, Williams claimed the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) had failed to award him COVID-19 credits and apply good time credits toward the minimum term of his aggregate sentence. He also appeared to claim the NDOC had precluded him from earning credits by failing to offer job or programming opportunities. 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). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing Williams’ petition.² 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”); see also Hall v. Oliver, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 70, ––– P.3d ––––, –––– (Ct. App. 2025) (holding the exhaustion requirement “act[s] as a procedural bar to a postconviction habeas petition challenging the computation of time served”). Accordingly,³ we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that Williams’ petition did not substantially comply with the statutory form for a time-computation petition, which includes questions related to the grievance of claims. See NRS 34.733.

2.   The district court implicitly concluded that Williams had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies when it cited NRS 34.724 and stated that, “[h]ad [Williams] followed the law, including the requirement regarding exhaustion of administrative remedies, [he] would have learned that his claims are frivolous.”

3.   Williams does not argue that the district court erred in granting the State's motion to refer him for disciplinary proceedings. Thus, we conclude Williams fails to demonstrate any error with respect to said motion.