Downing (Curtis) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Downing (Curtis) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedSeptember 2, 2021

Docket83362

StatusPublished

This text of Downing (Curtis) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Downing (Curtis) 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

Downing (Curtis) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CURTIS LUNDY DOWNING, No. 83362 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT SEP 0 2 2021 JUDGE, A. BROWN Respondents, PREME COURT

and DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MANDAMUS

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition, or in the alternative, mandamus, which challenges the Nevada Department of Corrections taking money from petitioner's inmate trust account to pay to the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation to then be disbursed to victims as restitution. It also challenges the judgment of conviction entered on May 20, 1998, and the amended judgment of conviction entered on August 15, 2012, for failure to name the victims entitled to restitution. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that extraordinary relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

I)47A -4),2g6IS" 4.; %.1.4tiS the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition will issue when petitioner has a "plain, speedy and adequate rernedy in the ordinary course of law." Gumni v. State, Dep't of Educ., 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853, 856 (2005); NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Petitioner indicates that the district court previously declined his postconviction petition for prohibition and petitioner appears to have appealed that decision in Docket No. 82870. That appeal was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees, but petitioner fails to indicate why an appeal from such denial does not constitute an adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/ , C.J. Hardesty

•

J. Pa raguirre Cadish

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Curtis Lundy Downing Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 0» 1947A

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

CURTIS LUNDY DOWNING, No. 83362 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED ADRIANA ESCOBAR, DISTRICT SEP 0 2 2021 JUDGE, A. BROWN Respondents, PREME COURT

and DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MANDAMUS

This is a petition for a writ of prohibition, or in the alternative, mandamus, which challenges the Nevada Department of Corrections taking money from petitioner's inmate trust account to pay to the Nevada Department of Parole and Probation to then be disbursed to victims as restitution. It also challenges the judgment of conviction entered on May 20, 1998, and the amended judgment of conviction entered on August 15, 2012, for failure to name the victims entitled to restitution. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that extraordinary relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

I)47A -4),2g6IS" 4.; %.1.4tiS the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that "the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court"). Neither a writ of mandamus nor a writ of prohibition will issue when petitioner has a "plain, speedy and adequate rernedy in the ordinary course of law." Gumni v. State, Dep't of Educ., 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853, 856 (2005); NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Petitioner indicates that the district court previously declined his postconviction petition for prohibition and petitioner appears to have appealed that decision in Docket No. 82870. That appeal was dismissed for failure to pay filing fees, but petitioner fails to indicate why an appeal from such denial does not constitute an adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

/ , C.J. Hardesty

•

J. Pa raguirre Cadish

cc: Hon. Adriana Escobar, District Judge Curtis Lundy Downing Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 0» 1947A

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Downing (Curtis) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/downing-curtis-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

J. Pa raguirre Cadish

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack