A. The corrections department has the power and the duty to examine and inquire into all matters connected with the government, discipline and police of the corrections facilities and the punishment and treatment of the prisoners; the department, shall inspect the corrections facilities and listen to any complaints of oppression or misconduct on the part of the warden or any of the other employees under him; and for that purpose, the secretary of corrections has the power to issue subpoenas and compel attendance of witnesses and to administer oaths.

B. No court of this state shall acquire subject-matter jurisdiction over any complaint, petition, grievance or civil action filed by any inmate of the corrections department with regard to any cause of action pursuant to state law that is substantially related to the inmate's incarceration by the corrections department until the inmate exhausts the corrections department's internal grievance procedure. Upon exhaustion of this administrative remedy, the first judicial proceeding shall be a de novo hearing, unless otherwise provided by law.

C. In any action brought by an inmate of the corrections department pursuant to Section 1979 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, the court shall, if the court believes that such a requirement would be appropriate and in the interests of justice, continue the case for a period of ninety days for the purpose of exhaustion by the inmate of any available plain, speedy and effective administrative remedies, but the exhaustion of those remedies shall not be required unless the court has determined, or the attorney general of the United States has certified, that the administrative remedies are in substantial compliance with the minimum acceptable standards adopted under 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(b).

History: Laws 1889, ch. 76, § 9; C.L. 1897, § 3499; Code 1915, § 5032; C.S. 1929, § 130-115; 1941 Comp., § 45-120; 1953 Comp., § 42-1-20; Laws 1977, ch. 257, § 68; 1990, ch. 9, § 1.

The 1990 amendment, effective May 16, 1990, substituted "Corrections department" for "Penitentiary - Division" in the catchline; designated the former section as Subsection A; in Subsection A, substituted "department has the power and the duty" for "division shall have power and it shall be its duty", "the corrections facilities" for "said penitentiary", "department" for "division", and "secretary of corrections has the" for "division director shall have"; inserted "in conjunction with the standards and inspection bureau" preceding "shall inspect"; and made a minor stylistic change; and added Subsections B and C.

Failure to pursue administrative remedy bars mandamus suit against warden. — Since appellant, a prison inmate, had failed to pursue the administrative remedy provided by this section, he was barred from obtaining a writ of mandamus against warden. Birdo v. Rodriguez, 1972-NMSC-062, 84 N.M. 207, 501 P.2d 195.

Expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care for monitoring inmates in prisons. — Where plaintiff, who was an inmate at a county detention center and who was assaulted and raped by three inmates, sued defendants for failing to protect plaintiff from the assault; plaintiff claimed that the area in which plaintiff was assaulted was an architectural blind spot that could not be covered by video surveillance, as well as not being directly monitored by guards, and that jurors could use common knowledge to find that it is negligence to allow inmates in an area that was not properly subject to surveillance or monitoring, either due to the existence of a blind spot or lack of guards; and defendant did not offer any testimony as to the standard of care for monitoring of inmates, jail design, video surveillance or any other factors that underlie those standards; the district court properly granted summary judgment for defendants because expert testimony was required in order for a jury to make a decision regarding the standard of care of the monitoring by prison officials and the mere fact that plaintiff was assaulted did not prove that prison monitoring fell below the required standard of care. Villalobos v. Do a Ana Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 2014-NMCA-044.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Right of state prison authorities to administer neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs to prisoner without his or her consent - state cases, 75 A.L.R.4th 1124.

72 C.J.S. Prisons and Rights of Prisoners § 129.