Rodgers (Craig) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

Nevada Supreme Court

Rodgers (Craig) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

DecidedJune 17, 2022

Docket84718

StatusPublished

This text of Rodgers (Craig) v. Dist. Ct. (State) (Rodgers (Craig) v. 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

Rodgers (Craig) v. Dist. Ct. (State), (Neb. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CRAIG ALLEN RODGERS, No. 84718 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 7 2022 SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondents, CLEZ UPREME COURT and BY

THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the district court to compel petitioner's former counsel and the district attorney's office to produce and transmit his entire case file. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears 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 v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Although petitioner references rulings by the district court, he has not provided this court with either copies of his motions filed below, district court orders granting his motions, or any of the documents necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

40) 1.447A aftalica (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

fr?ii6.11.41,1...SViairmalmix! C.J. Parraguirre

/A,,,.......&t.t. J. Hardesty

Alieutyli...0 J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Craig Allen Rodgers Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

IN I 947A egaND 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

CRAIG ALLEN RODGERS, No. 84718 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE JUN 1 7 2022 SUSAN JOHNSON, DISTRICT JUDGE, ELIZABETH A. BROWN Respondents, CLEZ UPREME COURT and BY

THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to direct the district court to compel petitioner's former counsel and the district attorney's office to produce and transmit his entire case file. This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears 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 v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). Although petitioner references rulings by the district court, he has not provided this court with either copies of his motions filed below, district court orders granting his motions, or any of the documents necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

40) 1.447A aftalica (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

fr?ii6.11.41,1...SViairmalmix! C.J. Parraguirre

/A,,,.......&t.t. J. Hardesty

Alieutyli...0 J. Stiglich

cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Craig Allen Rodgers Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

IN I 947A egaND 2

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Rodgers (Craig) v. Dist. Ct. (State), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rodgers-craig-v-dist-ct-state-nev-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack