Padilla (Raymond) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: April 15, 2020
• Docket: 80937
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RAYMOND GEAN PADILLA, No. 80937 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, APR 1 5 2020 Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to dismiss a criminal case against petitioner, with prejudice, based upon petitioner's allegations of prosecutorial and procedural misconduct.' Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other 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 matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRAP 21(b).

'In light of this disposition, we also deny petitioner's motion to exceed legal copy limits as moot. SUPREME COURT Of

2o-11-1-5so NEVADA

(0) 1947A We note that "petitioned ] carr [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). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.2

Adm. ,C.J. Pickering

&ett.AttoN , J. , J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Raymond Gean Padilla Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

2Petitioner's failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition also constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).