Johnson v. The Eleventh Dist. Ct.

Opinion

Supreme Court OF NEVADA

(0) 197A <I

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

TIMOTHY HOWARD JOHNSON, No. 84163 Petitioner, Vs. THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAR 11 2022 PERSHING; AND THE HONORABLE cphecn4a. Brown JIM C. SHIRLEY, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERIC gr SUPREME COURT

Respondents. 6 aoa eene ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition seeks a writ of mandamus

directing the district court to take action on four motions allegedly filed. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation 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”). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that “[pJetitioner[] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth

Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

It is so ORDERED. Parraguirre ~“ pA. kaa, a. AVG 9 od. Hardesty Stiglich

fee

oer

Rey eT ED cc: Hon. Jim C. Shirley, District Judge Timothy Howard Johnson

Attorney General/Carson City Clerk of the Court/Court Administrator

Supreme Court OF NEVADA

0) 19474 BIO