Respondents filed a motion to dismiss in the district court, 

arguing that Garcia had failed to exhaust all of her administrative 

remedies and that her complaint was barred by the statute of limitations. 

The district court granted the motion, finding that Garcia's claims were all 

subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which the district court found 

had expired on November 17, 2012, two years from the date respondents 

alleged the prison responded to Garcia's grievance regarding the assault. 

This appeal followed. 

This court reviews de novo an order granting an NRCP 

12(b)(5) motion to dismiss, accepting all factual allegations in the 

complaint as true, and drawing all inferences in the plaintiffs favor. 

Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 227-28, 181 P.3d 

670, 672 (2008). We have reviewed appellant's civil proper person appeal 

statement, respondent's response, appellant's reply,' and the record on 

appeal, and we conclude that the district court erred in granting 

respondents' motion to dismiss. 

Respondents concede in their response to Garcia's proper 

person appeal statement that there was no failure to exhaust 

administrative remedies by Garcia. Thus, the only remaining issue on 

appeal is whether Garcia's complaint was filed before the expiration of 

the statute of limitations. The district court found that all of Garcia's 

claims are subject to a two-year statute of limitations. See NRS 

'Appellant has filed proper person motions to strike respondents' 

response and to file a reply. Having considered the motions, we deny the 

motion to strike respondents' response and grant the motion to file a reply. 

The clerk of the court shall file the proper person reply provisionally 

received in this court on April 14, 2014. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1947A eD 
Cherry 

11.190(4)(c) and (e). But respondents argue that although Garcia's 

complaint was received by the clerk on October 8, 2012, because the 

motion to proceed in forma pauperis was not granted until December 5, 

2012, and the statute governing in forma pauperis applications does not 

toll the time for plaintiffs to file their complaints, Garcia's complaint was 

not filed until December 5 and was therefore time-barred. 

In Sullivan v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 111 Nev. 1367, 

1371, 904 P.2d 1039, 1042 (1995), this court stated that, where the 

district court clerk has received a complaint and motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis from a plaintiff, "for statute of limitations purposes, the 

complaint would have to be considered filed on the date of actual receipt 

by the clerk of the district court." Garcia's complaint therefore should 

have been considered filed on October 8, 2012, for statute of limitations 

purposes. Because the complaint was therefore filed less than two years 

from the date of the alleged October 25, 2010, sexual assault, and less 

than two years from the date the prison responded to Garcia's grievance, 

the district court erred in granting respondents' motion to dismiss 

Garcia's complaint based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. 

For the foregoing reasons, we therefore 

ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND 

REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with 

this order. 

Hardesty 

3 

Jc (45' 

Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 
SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 

cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge 

Karisma Garcia 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

4