Taylor, Jr. (Kevin) Vs. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: March 1, 2021
• Docket: 82421
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

KEVIN RAY TAYLOR, JR., No. 82421 Petitioner, t._ vs. F THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ILE COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, MAR 0 1 2021 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, A. BROWN CLERK OF S Respondent. CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition seeks a writ of mandamus to compel the parole board to reconsider its denial of petitioner's request to be released on parole. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a &strict court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. 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"). Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newrnan, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an Sumern COURT OF NEVADA

444130, (01 1947A 7--1 S-4Z appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of face and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "important public interests are involvecr); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district coure in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

, C.J. Hardesty

CILALftionmemed. J. Parraguirre Silver

cc: Kevin Ray Taylor, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME Couai OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 401. 2