Voss v. State ( 2013 )

 illegal seizure of his personal property. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1996)
(providing a cause of action to redress the violation of constitutional
rights); Bank of Lake Tahoe v. Bank of Am., 318 F.3d 914, 917 (9th Cir.
2003) (indicating that "a litigant complaining of a violation of a
constitutional right must utilize 42 U.S.C. § 1983" and explaining that
when the litigant does not expressly advance his or her allegations as
such, a court will nevertheless "construe the[] allegations under the
umbrella of § 1983" (quotation omitted)).
We agree with appellant that his complaint, when liberally
construed, alleges a deprivation of civil rights under § 1983. Nevertheless,
dismissal was still proper, as appellant's complaint fails to state a claim
for which relief can be granted. Namely, § 1983 actions are considered to
be personal injury actions and are subject to the forum state's applicable
statute of limitations. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 269, 276 (1985).
Nevada's statute of limitations for personal injury actions is two years.
See NRS 11.190(4)(e). As appellant's cause of action accrued in 1996 when
his constitutional rights were allegedly violated, his 2010 complaint is
time-barred.'
'Because appellant's complaint seeks a return of his property, his
complaint may be better construed as asserting a state-law cause of action
for conversion. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317,
328, 130 P.3d 1280, 1287 (2006) ("Conversion is a distinct act of dominion
wrongfully exerted over personal property in denial of, or inconsistent
with, title or rights therein or in derogation, exclusion or defiance of such
rights."). So construed, this cause of action would also be time-barred. See
Shupe & Yost, Inc. v. Fallon Nat'l Bank of Nev., 109 Nev. 99, 102, 847 P.2d
720, 721 (1993) (indicating that a conversion action is subject to NRS
11.190(3)(c)'s three-year statute of limitations).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
Because any cognizable causes of action based on the
allegations in appellant's complaint were time-barred by the applicable
statute of limitations, his complaint failed to state a claim for which relief
could be granted. See In re AMERCO Derivative Litig., 127 Nev. „
252 P.3d 681, 703 (2011) ("If the allegations contained in the. . . complaint
demonstrate that the statute of limitations has run, then dismissal upon
the pleadings is appropriate."). Accordingly, we affirm the district court's
dismissal of appellant's complaint. See J.D. Constr. v. IBEX Int? Grp., 126
Nev. 240 P.3d 1033, 1040 (2010) (affirming a district court
decision that reached the right result, albeit for an arguably wrong
reason).
It is so ORDERED.
Saitta
cc: Second Judicial District Court Dept. 9
Steven Floyd Voss
Washoe County District Attorney/Civil Division
Washoe District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A