Bonham v. Cegavske
This text of Bonham v. Cegavske (Bonham v. Cegavske) 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.
Opinion
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
BRYAN PHILLIP BONHAM, No. 83825 Petitioner, vs. FILED BARBARA K. CEGAVSKE, Respondent. A BROWN ctEms me COURT
ey ORDER DENYING PETITION This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner has failed to file with the petition any appendix. NRAP 21(a)(4) (explaining 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). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'
, C.J. Parraguirre
A 6--t J. Hardesty
Al; 2jci--0 Stiglich
'Petitioner's motion for an extension of time to obtain in forma pauperis status is denied, as this court has already waived the filing fee in this matter.
SUPREPAE COURT Of NEVADA
(0) I947A .44gto. - ?S. 1 _ • 1- . • .e cc: Bryan Phillip Bonham Attorney General/Carson City Clerk of the Court/Court Administrator
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A .S0p.•
..„
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bonham v. Cegavske, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonham-v-cegavske-nev-2022.