Polk v. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline

Nevada Supreme Court

Polk v. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline

DecidedNovember 18, 2014

Docket65971

StatusUnpublished

This text of Polk v. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline (Polk v. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline) 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

Polk v. Comm'n on Judicial Discipline, (Neb. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). In this case, petitioner has failed to provide this court with any appendix containing documentation of his complaints to the NCJD or the NCJD's action concerning those complaints. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Consequently, we are unable to substantiate petitioner's allegations. Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844 ("If essential information is left out of the petition and accompanying documentation, we have no way of properly evaluating the petition."). Thus, having considered the petition filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 21(b)(1). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

Picker:: °waft,

) 1 , 4

Douglas

J.

cc: Renard Truman Polk Nevada Commission on Judicial Discipline

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (C) I947A 44009

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

warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). In this case, petitioner has failed to provide this court with any appendix containing documentation of his complaints to the NCJD or the NCJD's action concerning those complaints. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Consequently, we are unable to substantiate petitioner's allegations. Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844 ("If essential information is left out of the petition and accompanying documentation, we have no way of properly evaluating the petition."). Thus, having considered the petition filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 21(b)(1). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.