Nevada Supreme Court, 2014

Berry, Sr. v. the Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

Berry, Sr. v. the Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.
Nevada Supreme Court · Decided November 14, 2014

Berry, Sr. v. the Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

WILLIAM JAMES BERRY, SR., No. 65525 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF NOV 1 4 2014 CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE TRACE K LINDEMAN JERRY A. WIESE, DISTRICT JUDGE, CLERK OF SUPREME COURT BY .‘ Respondents. DEPUTY CLEMt -

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This is an emergency original proper person petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court's vacation of a hearing after final judgment in a real property action.

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. NRS 34.160; Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Din. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court has the discretion to determine whether a writ petition will be considered. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist.

Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that this court's extraordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

In this case, the petitioner has failed to provide this court with any appendix containing documentation from the underlying action that would enable this court to understand and decide the alleged issues presented in this petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4). It is thus not possible for SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A ea).

1 1-1 -37(47 us to consider petitioner's allegations. Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844 ("If essential information is left out of the petition and accompanying documentation, we have no way of properly evaluating the petition.").

Having considered the petition filed in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. Id. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844; Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851; see also NRAP 21(b)(1). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

,J.

Hardesty

J.

Douglas

,J.

cc: Hon. Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge William James Berry, Sr. Attorney General/Carson City Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (ID 1947A

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.