From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Taylor v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mar 1, 2021
No. 82421 (Nev. Mar. 1, 2021)

Opinion

No. 82421

03-01-2021

KEVIN RAY TAYLOR, JR., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent.


ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the parole board to reconsider its denial of petitioner's request to be released on parole. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition").

Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "important public interests are involved"); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court" in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

/s/_________, C.J.

Hardesty /s/_________, J.
Parraguirre /s/_________, J.
Silver cc: Kevin Ray Taylor, Jr.

Attorney General/Carson City

Eighth District Court Clerk


Summaries of

Taylor v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Mar 1, 2021
No. 82421 (Nev. Mar. 1, 2021)
Case details for

Taylor v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN RAY TAYLOR, JR., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 1, 2021

Citations

No. 82421 (Nev. Mar. 1, 2021)