Ward v. State of Nev. ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                 injury statute of limitations applies to a 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
     action if the
    state has specific statutes of limitations for enumerated intentional torts
    and a residual statute of limitations for other personal injury actions).
    Although he did not file the instant action until 2012, appellant contends
    that the complaint was timely insofar as it related back to a writ petition
    that he filed in December 2007 as to the same allegations underlying the
    complaint. NRCP 15(c) permits an amended pleading to relate back to an
    earlier pleading within the same case, but does not allow for relation back
    to a pleading in a different action. Thus, we conclude that the district
    court correctly dismissed appellant's complaint as untimely, and we
    ORDER the ju                                        of the district court AFFIRMED. 2
    ibbons
    -   c=t-to /43
    2                                                        , J.
    Douglas
    t                                                                               Saitta
    2 In
    light of this conclusion, we need not address the district court's
    additional finding that the State of Nevada and the Nevada Department of
    Corrections were not proper defendants insofar as appellant's complaint
    was brought pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    .
    On May 3, 2013, appellant filed a motion, which appears to ask this
    court to serve a new complaint on certain parties. To the extent that
    appellant seeks to file a new complaint, the district court, rather than this
    court, is the proper venue for filing a new action. See Nev. Const. art. 6, §
    4 (explaining that this court has appellate jurisdiction over civil cases
    arising in the district court); Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6 (providing that the
    district courts "have original jurisdiction in all cases excluded by law from
    the original jurisdiction of the justices' courts"). Accordingly, we deny
    appellant's May 3 motion. We also deny as moot appellant's June 24,
    2013, motion for leave to file for additional relief requested in the district
    court, for appointment of counsel, and for leave to appear before this court.
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    (0) 1947A
    ff.174149.,:).. -AA,,1,51AAVAC.ISC,1r.,U, rA11,-1 ,41111CAVAATATIAP            FAA            MiT441111
    cc: Hon. James Todd Russell, District Judge
    Frederick Louis Ward
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Carson City Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    3
    (0) 1947A
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 60737

Filed Date: 9/19/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021