Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Milton v. Nevada Department of Prisons
Citations: 68 P.3d 895; 119 Nev. 163; 119 Nev. Adv. Rep. 21; 2003 Nev. LEXIS 22Docket: 38251
Court: Nevada Supreme Court; May 14, 2003; Nevada; State Supreme Court
Gregory Ronald Milton appealed the dismissal of his personal injury complaint against the Nevada Department of Prisons, which was dismissed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations. Milton claimed he submitted his complaint to prison officials on January 5, 2001, but the district court received it on January 10, 2001, exceeding the two-year limit from the incident date of January 8, 1999. He argued that under the "prison mailbox rule," his complaint should be considered filed on the date he handed it to prison officials, similar to how notices of appeal are treated per the precedent set in Kellogg v. Journal Communications. However, the Supreme Court of Nevada declined to extend the mailbox rule to initial civil complaints, referencing its decision in Gonzales v. State, which distinguished between the short deadlines for notices of appeal and the longer time frames for other filings. The court reasoned that there was no compelling policy reason to apply a blanket mailbox rule for personal injury lawsuits. Consequently, the dismissal of Milton's action was upheld. NRS 11.190(4)(e) mandates that personal injury claims must be filed within two years from when the cause of action arises. Relevant case law, including Pressler v. City of Reno and Kellogg v. State of Nevada, clarifies that an untimely notice of appeal does not establish jurisdiction. Specifically, in Kellogg, the court aligned its procedural rules with those of the federal system as established in Houston v. Lack. Furthermore, according to NRS 34.726(1), petitions challenging a conviction must be filed within one year unless good cause for delay is demonstrated. In the case at hand, Milton asserts he provided the summons and complaint to prison officials before the statutory deadline, while the Department acknowledges receiving an envelope addressed to the court but disputes its contents. Milton may pursue relief under NRCP 60(b) or through an independent action if he can prove fraud. However, if the delay is merely due to the prison mail system, the responsibility for the delay lies with Milton, who had two years to initiate the claim.