Grace (Nathan) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

CourtNevada Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 24, 2019
Docket76947
StatusPublished

This text of Grace (Nathan) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Grace (Nathan) 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
Grace (Nathan) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2019).

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

NATHAN GRACE, No. 76947 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE FILED MICHAEL VILLANI, DISTRICT JUL 2 2019 JUDGE, ELUZABETMA. EROWN Respondents, CLERK 9F UPREME COURT BY and DEPLIT- /CLER THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of habeas corpus or mandamus challenges an order of the district court denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus or mandamus that takes issue with the constitutionality of a pretrial confinement order. We conclude that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Petitioner acknowledges that he unsuccessfully challenged the increase in bail in a petition for a writ of mandamus filed in the district court, and the documents submitted to this court indicate that he did not appeal from any adverse decision. A writ of mandamus will issue only "where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law." NRS 34.170. An appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 223, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). An order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus is appealable. NRS 2.090(2); NRAP 3A(b)(1); Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 109 Nev. 662, 665, 856 P.2d 244,

1 q -31337 246 (1993). Because petitioner has not demonstrated why an appeal is an inadequate remedy in this instance, we deny the petition. We note that this petition is one of three pending petitions raising similar issues. See Valdez-Jimenez u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. 76417; Frye v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, Docket No. 76845. Because our exercise of extraordinary relief is discretionary, see Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and arguably viable issues remain in the other two pending petitions, we deny this petition now to avoid having it linger on this court's docket. It is so ORDERED.'

Gibbo

P1661. , J. J. Pickering Hardesty

Parraguirre Stiglich

J. Silver

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge Clark County Public Defender Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'The Honorable Elissa F. Cadish, Justice, is disqualified from participating in this matter.

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

Related

Smith v. Eighth Judicial District Court
818 P.2d 849 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1991)
Ashokan v. State, Department of Insurance
856 P.2d 244 (Nevada Supreme Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Grace (Nathan) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grace-nathan-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2019.