Matadamas-Serrano v. Clark Cty. Pub. Defender'S Office

Nevada Supreme Court·Decided August 4, 2022·No. 84988·Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RUBEN MATADAMAS-SERRANO, No. 84988 Petitioner, vs. FILE CLARK COUNTY PUBLIC AUG 0 4 2022 DEFENDER'S OFFICE,

ELIZABETH A. BROWN

Respondent. CLERKPREME COURT \

DEPUTY CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioner's motion to dismiss counsel. Petitioner has failed to include with his petition necessary documentation supporting his request for relief. NRAP 21(a)(4) (petitioner must provide all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition); NRAP 21(c) (petitions for extraordinary writs shall to the extent practicable conform to NRAP 21(a)). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENI

Parr uirre

J.

Hardesty

AlLtbat..V J.

Stiglich

ce: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, Chief Judge Ruben Matadamas-Serrano Clark County Public Defender SUPREME COURT Eighth District Court Clerk OF NEVADA

111-17A 3-2-1-1475-

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

Matadamas-Serrano v. Clark Cty. Pub. Defender'S Office, (Neb. 2022).

Matadamas-Serrano v. Clark Cty. Pub. Defender'S Office (Matadamas-Serrano v. Clark Cty. Pub. Defender'S Office) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.