Manning Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

Nevada Supreme Court

Manning Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

DecidedFebruary 7, 2020

Docket79473

StatusPublished

This text of Manning Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Manning Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.) 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

Manning Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JUAN DELEON MANNING, No. 79473 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a writ directing the district court to proceed on petitioner's civil action. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and "the issuance of a writ of mandamus . . . is purely discretionary with this court." See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). We reiterate that Ipletitioner[ ] car/[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). Having SUPREME COUR OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ogjibr> zo or3 011 considered the documents before us, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

C.J.

4.

, J. J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Juan Deleon Manning Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

'We are confident that the district court will resolve all pending matters as expeditiously as its calendar permits. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A <44,00 2 ,-..: • 1,11i -

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

JUAN DELEON MANNING, No. 79473 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking a writ directing the district court to proceed on petitioner's civil action. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and "the issuance of a writ of mandamus . . . is purely discretionary with this court." See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). We reiterate that Ipletitioner[ ] car/[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). Having SUPREME COUR OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ogjibr> zo or3 011 considered the documents before us, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

C.J.

4.

, J. J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Juan Deleon Manning Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

'We are confident that the district court will resolve all pending matters as expeditiously as its calendar permits. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A <44,00 2 ,-..: • 1,11i -

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Manning Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manning-vs-the-eighth-jud-dist-ct-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack