Longstreet, Sr. (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Longstreet, Sr. (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJuly 30, 2021

Docket83170

StatusPublished

This text of Longstreet, Sr. (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Longstreet, Sr. (Anthony) 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

Longstreet, Sr. (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTHONY ODELL LONGSTREET, SR., No. 83170 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, : HUD IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, JUL 3 0 2021 Respondent, ELIZABETH BROWN COURT CLERK and Ar;it A.r1 THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition and amended petition seek a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to permit petitioner to represent himself and accept his filings. Having considered the petition and amended petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Although petitioner has supplied a docket sheet indicating that the district court may have denied his request to represent himself, he has not provided this court with a copy of a written order signed by the district court. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential

'Petitioner has submitted two filings entitled, "Petition For Writ of Mandamus." We construe the second filing as an amended petition as it is not identical to the first filing, but generally seeks the same relief. to understand the matters set forth in the petition"); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition and amended petition DENIED.2

, C.J. Haraesty

P rraguirre Cadish

cc: Anthony Odell Longstreet, Sr. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Given our disposition, we take no action on petitioner's motions to 2 proceed in forma pauperis. However, we note that the filing fee was waived upon the docketing of this writ petition. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

OA 1947A 4E*, 2

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

ANTHONY ODELL LONGSTREET, SR., No. 83170 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, : HUD IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, JUL 3 0 2021 Respondent, ELIZABETH BROWN COURT CLERK and Ar;it A.r1 THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition and amended petition seek a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to permit petitioner to represent himself and accept his filings. Having considered the petition and amended petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Although petitioner has supplied a docket sheet indicating that the district court may have denied his request to represent himself, he has not provided this court with a copy of a written order signed by the district court. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential

'Petitioner has submitted two filings entitled, "Petition For Writ of Mandamus." We construe the second filing as an amended petition as it is not identical to the first filing, but generally seeks the same relief. to understand the matters set forth in the petition"); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition and amended petition DENIED.2

, C.J. Haraesty

P rraguirre Cadish

cc: Anthony Odell Longstreet, Sr. Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

Given our disposition, we take no action on petitioner's motions to 2 proceed in forma pauperis. However, we note that the filing fee was waived upon the docketing of this writ petition. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

OA 1947A 4E*, 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Longstreet, Sr. (Anthony) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/longstreet-sr-anthony-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack