DENNIS v. OLIVER (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petition, Dennis claimed he was entitled to work credits under NRS 209.446 5(2) because he had made persistent efforts to apply for labor programs. The Attorney General's Office moved to dismiss the petition because Dennis failed to first exhaust his administrative remedies as required by NRS 34.724(1), (2)(c). See Hall v. Oliver, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 70, ––– P.3d ––––, –––– (Ct. App. 2025) (“[T]he plain language of NRS 34.724 and 34.810(2) mandates that a postconviction habeas petitioner challenging the computation of time served pursuant to a judgment of conviction must exhaust all available administrative remedies before filing their petition.”). Dennis argued he was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies because AR 740.03(4)(B) provides that state and local laws are “non-grievance issues.” He also contended he had exhausted the administrative remedy process and attached documents purporting to demonstrate the exhaustion.

The district court found that Dennis failed to allege or prove he had exhausted all available administrative remedies. The record supports this finding. Initially, Dennis made no allegation about exhausting all available administrative remedies on the face of his petition. See Hall, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 70, ––– P.3d at –––– (“Such allegations [regarding the exhaustion of all available administrative remedies] must be on the face of the petition.”). But even accepting as true the allegations and documents Dennis provided in his reply to the motion to dismiss, he failed to allege or demonstrate he exhausted all his administrative remedies before filing the instant petition. Moreover, Dennis’ claim was grievable because it challenged the application of credits toward his sentence, which is within the authority and control of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC). See NDOC AR 740.03(4) (stating that “claims occurring out of, or relating to, issues within the authority and control of the Department may be submitted for review and resolution”); see also Vickers v. Dzurenda, 134 Nev. 747, 748, 433 P.3d 306, 308 (Ct. App. 2018) (“NRS 209.4465(2) grants the NDOC's Director the discretion to allow not more than 10 days of credit each month for an offender whose diligence in labor and study merits such credits.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).

Therefore, Dennis failed to demonstrate he exhausted his administrative remedies before filing the instant petition, and we conclude the district court did not err by dismissing his petition without prejudice. See NRS 34.810(2) (“The 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.