MARENCO v. STATE (2026)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petition, Marenco argued the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) failed to: (1) credit him with work credits for the year 2018; and (2) credit him with education credits for a class he took called “economic strategies.” A petitioner who files a postconviction habeas petition challenging the computation of time served must first exhaust all available administrative remedies. See NRS 34.724(1). The exhaustion requirement acts as a procedural bar to a postconviction habeas petition challenging the computation of time served, see Hall v. Oliver, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 70, ––– P.3d ––––, –––– (Ct. App. 2025), and a court must dismiss such a petition without prejudice where the requirement has not been satisfied, see NRS 34.810(2). “Generally, in order to exhaust administrative remedies, [t]he prison's grievance process requires an inmate to first file an informal grievance, followed by first- and second-level formal grievances.” Hall, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 70, ––– P.3d at –––– (internal quotation marks omitted); see generally NDOC AR 740. And a petitioner must, on the face of the petition, make specific factual allegations regarding the exhaustion of all available administrative remedies that, if true, would entitle the petitioner to consideration of the petition on the merits. See Hall, 141 Nev., Adv. Op. 70, ––– P.3d at ––––.

Here, Marenco did not allege on the face of his petition that he had exhausted his administrative remedies. The district court ordered Marenco to demonstrate he had exhausted his administrative remedies before filing his petition. In response, Marenco provided an informal grievance and first-level grievance regarding his claim for work credits. He also provided an improper grievance memo, which informed Marenco that his grievance was rejected because it was missing pertinent documents and that he needed to resubmit his grievance with the pertinent documents. The improper grievance memo was labeled as a second rejection, level 1, but Marenco stated it was his second-level grievance. Marenco did not allege or provide any documents to support that he followed the instructions in the improper grievance memo and exhausted his administrative remedies with respect to his claim regarding work credits. See NDOC AR 740.03(6) (stating an offender may not appeal a decision to the next procedural level if their grievance is not accepted and that “the offender must correct the issues that led to the rejection of the grievance, and follow the instructions provided on the Improper Grievance Memorandum DOC 3098”). Further, Marenco did not provide any documentation or information that he exhausted his administrative remedies as to his claim regarding education credits.

Based on the record, we conclude Marenco did not make specific factual allegations regarding the exhaustion of all available administrative remedies that, if true, would overcome the procedural bar in NRS 34.810(2) and entitle him to consideration of his petition on the merits. Even considering information that was not presented on the face of the petition, Marenco's documents support the conclusion that his grievance process stopped at the first level. Therefore, we conclude the petition should have been dismissed without prejudice pursuant to NRS 34.810(2). While the district court erred by reaching the merits of Marenco's claims, we nevertheless affirm the decision of the district court because it reached the correct result. See Wyatt v. State, 86 Nev. 294, 298, 468 P.2d 338, 341 (1970) (holding a correct result will not be reversed simply because it is based on the wrong reason). Accordingly,¹ we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Nothing in this order should be construed as precluding Marenco from filing a postconviction habeas petition challenging the computation of time served after the exhaustion of all available administrative remedies.