Opinion
87299 87480
11-03-2023
PRANK MILFORD PECK, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NADIA KRALL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA AND NDOC, Real Parties in Interest, LAS VEGAS RESORT HOLDINGS, LLC F/K/A STOCKBRIDCE/SBE HOLDINGS, LLC D/B/A SLS LAS VEGAS, Petitioners, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE NANCY L. ALLF, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and BRADY LINEN SERVICES, LLC, Real Party in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION
STIGLICH, C. J.
This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the district court district court to rule on pending filings.
Mandamus relief is an extraordinary remedy, and petitioners bear the burden to show that such relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). In the instant matter, petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted, as the petition is not supported by any relevant documentation and lacks critical information about petitioner's pending district court filings that underlie this petition. NEAP 21(a)(4) (stating that it is the petitioner's obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition).
Without this crucial information, we cannot evaluate the petition. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Cadish, J., Herndon, J.
Hon. Nadia Krall, District Judge
(Image Omitted)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting partial summary judgment and declaratory relief in a contract action.
Having considered the petition and its supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 843-44 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted and explaining that the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief). Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851. 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Specifically, we generally decline to consider writ petitions challenging district court orders granting partial summary judgment, and we are not convinced that any exceptions to that general rule apply here. Renown Reg'l Med. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 130 Nev. 824, 828, 335 P.3d 199, 202 (2014); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 113 Nev. 1343, 1344-4 5, 950 P.2d 280, 281 (1997) (explaining this general policy and relevant exceptions). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Hon. Nancy L. Allf, District Judge