Coenen Vs. State

472 P.3d 1208
CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 2, 2020
Docket81691
StatusPublished

This text of 472 P.3d 1208 (Coenen Vs. 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
Coenen Vs. State, 472 P.3d 1208 (Neb. 2020).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

BRENDAN R. COENEN, No. 81691 Petitioner, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA; THE HONORABLE STEVE SISOLAK, FILED GOVERNOR; JAMES DZURENDA, OCT 0 2 2020 DIRECTOR; PERRY RUSSELL, ELIZABETH A. BROWN WARDEN; AND NEVADA STATE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY S•V BOARD OF PAROLE DERBY CttRK

COMMISSIONERS, Res • ondents.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY RELIEF

This original pro se petition for extraordinary relief seeks petitioner's immediate release from prison as well as the appointment of a special counselor/master with the authority to appropriately reduce the prison population so that the Nevada Department of Corrections may comply with recommendations for sanitation and social distancing. Petitioner argues that the Nevada Department of Corrections has failed to address unsanitary conditions in the prison and, as a result, the increased risk of Covid-19 infection presents a serious threat to both his health, due to his preexisting health conditions, and that of other prisoners. For many of the same reasons addressed in Kerkorian v. State, Docket No. 80917 (Order Denying Petition, April 30, 2020)—including the presence of fact questions this court is ill-suited to resolve—we deny the petition. 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 face and SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) I947A 4411N. Ao -3449(03 ghtlireatit 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"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

J. J , J. Hardesty Silver

cc: Brendan R. Coenen Attorney General/Carson City

lIn light of our decision, we deny petitioner's motion for the appointment of counsel.

SUPREME Com- OF NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 446104

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

Related

Round Hill General Improvement District v. Newman
637 P.2d 534 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
472 P.3d 1208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coenen-vs-state-nev-2020.