NRS
41.0322 Actions by persons in custody of Department of Corrections to
recover compensation for loss or injury.
1. A person who is or was in the custody
of the Department of Corrections may not proceed with any action against the
Department or any of its agents, former officers, employees or contractors to
recover compensation for the loss of the person’s personal property, property
damage, personal injuries or any other claim arising out of a tort pursuant to NRS 41.031 unless the person has exhausted
the person’s administrative remedies provided by NRS 209.243 and the regulations adopted
pursuant thereto.
2. The filing of an administrative claim
pursuant to NRS 209.243 is not a
condition precedent to the filing of an action pursuant to NRS 41.031.
3. An action filed by a person in
accordance with this section before the exhaustion of the person’s
administrative remedies must be stayed by the court in which the action is
filed until the administrative remedies are exhausted. The court shall dismiss
the action if the person has not timely filed the person’s administrative claim
pursuant to NRS 209.243.
4. If a person has exhausted the person’s
administrative remedies and has filed and is proceeding with a civil action to
recover compensation for the loss of the person’s personal property, property
damage, personal injuries or any other claim arising out of a tort, the Office
of the Attorney General must initiate and conduct all negotiations for
settlement relating to that action.
(Added to NRS by 1993,
1210; A 1995,
1517; 2001
Special Session, 213)
Notes of Decisions
State, Dep't of Corr. v. Dist. Ct. (caperonis) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 54 (Nev. 2025).
· cites it 28× “Based on the unambiguous statutory language, which is wholly consistent with the statutes’ apparent purpose, we conclude that the NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 exhaustion requirements do not apply to the estate of a deceased inmate, and we therefore deny NDOC’s writ petition.”
Berry v. Feil (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 14× “In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Berry v. Feil, 2015 NV 37 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 7× “In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative• remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Berry Vs. Feil, 2015 NV 37 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 7× “In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Berry Vs. Feil, 2015 NV 37 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 7× “In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Pertgen v. Baca (D. Nev. 2024).
· cites it 4× “Judge Denney recommended 5 granting summary judgment to Defendants on this claim because he found that Plaintiff is 6 alleging that there has been an unauthorized negligent or intentional deduction from his 7 account—since the restitution sanction was for split restitution but…”
Abarra Vs. State, 2015 NV 3 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 6× “NRS 41.0322(1). However, the exhaustion doctrine only applies to available administrative remedies.”
Nelson v. Nevada Dept. of Corr. (D. Nev. 2025).
· cites it 3× “3 To the extent that Nelson is attempting to sue Cooke or Gittere for denying his 4 grievances, Nelson fails to state a claim.”
Rodriguez-Perez v. Neven (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0322 25 (setting forth guidelines for actions by persons in custody of the NDOC to recover 26 compensation for loss or injury).”
Bousley v. Alamillo (D. Nev. 2020).
· cites it 2× “See Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0322 . 1 Bousley contends he should not be required to file a state law claim as an exclusive 2 remedy and he contends a small claims action would not allow him to litigate his due process 3 claim.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0322(1) — 6 cases
State, Dep't of Corr. v. Dist. Ct. (caperonis) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 54 (Nev. 2025).
“Based on the unambiguous statutory language, which is wholly consistent with the statutes’ apparent purpose, we conclude that the NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 exhaustion requirements do not apply to the estate of a deceased inmate, and we therefore deny NDOC’s writ petition.”
Abarra Vs. State, 2015 NV 3 (Nev. 2015).
“NRS 41.0322(1). However, the exhaustion doctrine only applies to available administrative remedies.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.0322(3) — 5 cases
Berry v. Feil (Nev. 2015).
“In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Berry v. Feil, 2015 NV 37 (Nev. 2015).
“In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative• remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Berry Vs. Feil, 2015 NV 37 (Nev. 2015).
“In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
Berry Vs. Feil, 2015 NV 37 (Nev. 2015).
“In addressing this issue below, the district court held NRS 41.0322(3) did not mandate a stay of Berry's complaint to allow him to exhaust his administrative remedies because he did not raise any state tort claims.”
State, Dep't of Corr. v. Dist. Ct. (caperonis) (civil), 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 54 (Nev. 2025).
“Based on the unambiguous statutory language, which is wholly consistent with the statutes’ apparent purpose, we conclude that the NRS 41.0322 and NRS 209.243 exhaustion requirements do not apply to the estate of a deceased inmate, and we therefore deny NDOC’s writ petition.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.