Reberger (Lance) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: August 26, 2021
• Docket: 83311
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LANCE REBERGER, No. 8331]. Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK, AUG 2 6 2021 Respondent, ELIZABETH A. BROWN and CLEW PREME COURT BY THE STATE OF NEVADA, CLERK Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition seeks a writ of prohibition compelling the district court to deny several pretrial motions filed by the State. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan u. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an appeal from a judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy to challenge the district court's rulings on the motions. Further, although petitioner has supplied a transcript of a

hearing on the rnotions, he has not provided this court with a copy of a written order signed by the district court. 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"); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Hardesty

/414G1-- J. Parraguirre Stiglich

cc: Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge Lance Reberger Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 10) I947A aegirgyr.

P.ifer.r. •