Ediga (Michael) v. Dist. Ct. (The City of Las Vegas)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: December 17, 2015
• Docket: 68679
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

jurisdiction, has exceeded its jurisdiction, or has exercised its discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner." State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Hedland), 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000). We conclude that Ediga fails to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. First, he fails to demonstrate that a duty was required by law. See NRS 34.160. Second, Ediga fails to allege that the district court's decision to dismiss his appeal was "a judicial function without or in excess of its jurisdiction," NRS 34.320. The district court had jurisdiction to consider and dismiss Ediga's appeal, NRS 177.015(1); NRS 189.060; NRS 189.065; therefore, a writ of prohibition is inappropriate. Third, he fails to demonstrate that the district court's dismissal was based on prejudice or preference, contrary to established law, or based on a clearly erroneous interpretation of the law; therefore, he fails to demonstrate that the district court manifestly abused or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion and manifest abuse of discretion). Because Ediga fails to demonstrate an exception to our general rule, see Hedland, 116 Nev. at 134, 994 P.2d at 696, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Gibbons

geileu SUPREME COURT OF Pickering NEVADA 2 (0) I947A 4 4e(9 cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge Mueller Hinds & Associates Attorney General/Carson City Las Vegas City Attorney• Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A e