Monroe (Daimon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Monroe (Daimon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedMay 7, 2020

Docket81048

StatusPublished

This text of Monroe (Daimon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) (Monroe (Daimon) 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

Monroe (Daimon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DAIMON MONROE, No. 81048 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF F E 111

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC MAY 0 7 2020 JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, EU:A5ET: WN Respondents, CLEF;i:: c PREAtE COURT

and UEPUTt` CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition appears to allege that the State failed to produce material evidence—specifically, two search warrants. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or 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 rnatters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this rnatter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that "[p]etitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth

261 - 17341(o Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

p 4Lt, , C.J. Pickering

-A , J. Al4CA-.0 ,J Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge Daimon Monroe Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEvADA

(0) 1947A 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

DAIMON MONROE, No. 81048 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF F E 111

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ERIC MAY 0 7 2020 JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, EU:A5ET: WN Respondents, CLEF;i:: c PREAtE COURT

and UEPUTt` CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition appears to allege that the State failed to produce material evidence—specifically, two search warrants. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or 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 rnatters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this rnatter. See NRAP 21(b). We reiterate that "[p]etitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth

261 - 17341(o Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

p 4Lt, , C.J. Pickering

-A , J. Al4CA-.0 ,J Hardesty Stiglich

cc: Hon. Eric Johnson, District Judge Daimon Monroe Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEvADA

(0) 1947A 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Monroe (Daimon) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-daimon-vs-dist-ct-state-nev-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack