Anderson (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Anderson (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedFebruary 19, 2020

Docket80463

StatusPublished

This text of Anderson (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Anderson (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTHONY KENNETH ANDERSON, No. 80463 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; THE HONORABLE DONALD M. MOSLEY; AND THE HONORABLE J. CHARLES THOMPSON, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original pro se petition for a writ of quo warranto or prohibition, petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the district court judge who signed his judgment of conviction and alleges that he was wrongfully convicted of charges that had previously been dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner's claims are outside the scope of those for which quo warranto may be granted. See Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 678-79, 219 P.3d 895, 898 (2009). We therefore decline to entertain the petition for a writ of quo warranto. A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain the district court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has complete discretion in deciding whether to entertain a petition seeking such relief. Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008). Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A - OOP discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted). Accordingly, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering

fAc..A. Hardesty , J. , J. Cadish

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Anthony Kenneth Anderson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A GAD" 2

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTHONY KENNETH ANDERSON, No. 80463 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; THE HONORABLE DONALD M. MOSLEY; AND THE HONORABLE J. CHARLES THOMPSON, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original pro se petition for a writ of quo warranto or prohibition, petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the district court judge who signed his judgment of conviction and alleges that he was wrongfully convicted of charges that had previously been dismissed with prejudice. Petitioner's claims are outside the scope of those for which quo warranto may be granted. See Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 678-79, 219 P.3d 895, 898 (2009). We therefore decline to entertain the petition for a writ of quo warranto. A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain the district court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has complete discretion in deciding whether to entertain a petition seeking such relief. Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008). Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A - OOP discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted). Accordingly, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Pickering

fAc..A. Hardesty , J. , J. Cadish

cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. J. Charles Thompson, Senior Judge Anthony Kenneth Anderson Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A GAD" 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Anderson (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-anthony-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack