Shawn (Rick) Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: February 19, 2020
• Docket: 80482
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

RICK SHAWN, No. 80482 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus to declare petitioner's convictions void as a matter of law. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Inel Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of mandamus will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.170; Int? Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Further, mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and "the issuance of a writ of mandamus . . . is purely discretionary with this court." See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). We reiterate that "Metitioned 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). Having considered the documents before us, we conclude that petitioner has failed SUPREMCOURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 400.4 2„0-00r3 to demonstrate that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, J. Hardesty Cadish

cc: Rick Shawn Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 4ait., 2