Sanson v. Dist. Ct. (Ansell)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

STEVE SANSON, AN INDIVIDUAL; No. 77363 AND VETERANS IN POLITICS

INTERNATIONAL, INC., A NEVADA

NON-PROFIT CORPORATION,

Petitioners, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK;

FILED THE HONORABLE BRYCE C. JAN 1 8 2019 DUCKWORTH, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND ELIZABETH A. BROWN THE HONORABLE NANCY M. SAITTA, CLERK F SUPREME COURT BY ' Respondents, DEPUTY CLERK and

DOUG ANSELL, AN INDIVIDUAL; AND

IRINA ANSELL, AN INDIVIDUAL,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of certiorari or, alternatively, mandamus challenging portions of a family court judge's recusal order in the context of a divorce action to which petitioners were not parties. Having considered petitioners' argument and the supporting documents, we conclude that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is not warranted. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.020; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004); Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987).

SUPREME Count

OF

NEVADA e), (0) 1947A 4

14 - 03o“ In particular, petitioners have not shown that Judge Duckworth exceeded his jurisdiction or arbitrarily or capriciously exercised his discretion by stating the reasons for his sua sponte recusal. See Ham v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 93 Nev. 409, 416, 566 P.2d 420, 424 (1977) (observing that a judge should preside over a case unless prevented from doing so by a proper reason, in which case the judge should step down and explain why withdrawal is warranted); see also In re Union Leader Corp., 292 F.2d 381, 391 (1st Cir. 1961) ("It is not inappropriate for a judge to set forth his reasons for disqualifying himself ") Petitioners have likewise not shown that Senior Justice Saitta exceeded her jurisdiction in concluding that petitioners lacked standing to challenge Judge Duckworth's recusal order. Cf. SCR 10; EDCR 1.60. Further, petitioners have not shown that Senior Justice Saitta was obligated to strike Judge Duckworth's order as void when Judge Duckworth was not recused until after entering the order, see El Fenix de Puerto Rico v. M/Y JOHANNY, 36 F.3d 136, 142 (1st Cir. 1994) (noting the general rule that a recused judge should take no further action after recusal but to effect the administrative transfer of the case); Russell v. Lane, 890 F.2d 947, 948-49 (7th Cir. 1989) (examining the relevant federal statute and observing that a judge's recusal does not render the orders entered before recusal necessarily infirm); see also Towbin Dodge, LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 251, 258, 112 P.3d 1063, 1068 (2005) (looking to federal practice in interpreting Nevada's judicial disqualification rules), nor that she was obligated to determine that

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A a. petitioners had standing simply because they asserted an interest in a proceeding to which they were not parties.' Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

C.J. Gibbori it Hardesty J.

.A4t.tbauti J. Stiglich cc: Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court Hon. Nancy M. Saitta, Senior Justice Anat Levy & Associates, P.C.

Black & LoBello

Willick Law Group

Eighth District Court Clerk

'While petitioners lament that other unstated nonparties have relied on Judge Duckworth's order to petitioners' detriment in unrelated proceedings, such complaint does not demonstrate a basis for our extraordinary intervention.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA (0) 1947A e

Li ' '