Thomas (Stanley) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State)

• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Decided: September 9, 2020
• Docket: 81675
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

STANLEY DEWAYNE THOMAS, No. 81675 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, SEP 0 9 2020 Respondent, ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK OF SUPREME COURT and By 5 YO-4•11-14- DEPUTY CLERK THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to dismiss the criminal charges against petitioner based on the State's delay in bringing petitioner to trial— allegedly due to issues related to Covid 19. Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with all of the exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. 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"). We reiterate that "[p]etitioner[ J 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).

SUPREME COURT Of NEVADA

(0) 1947A .ligi#F4 - 33205 ---Aii • 4.1-z41, Moreover, to the extent petitioner has counsel below, he must proceed by and through counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Pideutuf ' , C.J. Pickering J J. , J. Hardesty Silver

cc: Stanley Dewayne Thomas Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1Petitioner's failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).

LY.1. e " .` ittikbkkA'atfiiktkidtk