Hudson (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Hudson (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedAugust 26, 2021

Docket83319

StatusPublished

This text of Hudson (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Hudson (Michael) 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

Hudson (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MICHAEL HUDSON, No. 83319 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, FILED Respondent, AUG 2 6 2021 and ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEVADA, < ‘,/ BY Real Party in Interest. DF_PtilY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges petitioner's conviction. Petitioner asserts that (1) he was sexually assaulted by prison staff; (2) illegally placed in a "sling hoise; (3) subject to a separate "viscous assault"; (4) the State has committed records fraud in his criminal case CR19-3112; and (5) he is innocent of the charges brought against him. At the outset, we note that petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other docurnentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) C`Petitioned cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). Moreover, having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and

' •• r •oy adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the district court's denial of such relief in the first instance. See NRAP 22 CAn

application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ."); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Parraguirre • J. Cadish

cc: Michael Hudson Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 ((>) i947A Map

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

MICHAEL HUDSON, No. 83319 Petitioner, vs. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE, FILED Respondent, AUG 2 6 2021 and ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF NEVADA, < ‘,/ BY Real Party in Interest. DF_PtilY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenges petitioner's conviction. Petitioner asserts that (1) he was sexually assaulted by prison staff; (2) illegally placed in a "sling hoise; (3) subject to a separate "viscous assault"; (4) the State has committed records fraud in his criminal case CR19-3112; and (5) he is innocent of the charges brought against him. At the outset, we note that petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other docurnentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) C`Petitioned cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted."). Moreover, having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and

' •• r •oy adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the district court's denial of such relief in the first instance. See NRAP 22 CAn

application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ."); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Hardesty

Parraguirre • J. Cadish

cc: Michael Hudson Attorney General/Carson City Washoe County District Attorney

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 ((>) i947A Map

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hudson (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hudson-michael-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack