Mitchell v. The First Jud. Dist. Ct.

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHAD WINDHAM MITCHELL, No. 84693 Petitioner, vs. THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

FILE

CARSON CITY, JUN 30 2022 Respondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK • SUPREME COURT BY

DEPU1 CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to file his "petition for a court order".

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; lnt'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.H. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears 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). Further, it is petitioner's responsibility to provide this court with all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition. NRAP 21(a)(4).

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief.

SUPREME COURT See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix OF NEVADA

I947A aciako 20(07

2

containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.1

Parraguirre

J.

Hardesty

J.

Stiglich

cc: Chad Windham Mitchell Carson City District Attorney Carson City Clerk

'Accordingly, we take no action on appellant's pro per letters filed on SUPREME COURT May 17, 2022, May 25, 2022, and June 7, 2022.

OF NEVADA

10) 1947A