Hidalgo, III v. State Bar of Nev. Disciplinary Bd.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

LUIS ALONSO HIDALGO, III, No. 77719 Petitioner, W11:1

VS. FR STATE BAR OF NEVADA

DISCIPLINARY BOARD, MAY 1 ti9 Respondent.

CLERK Cord;;F: 1...E COURT BY— TOM' 711.:7( ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS This pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the State Bar of Nevada's decision not to bring disciplinary charges against attorney Dominic Gentile.' Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not convinced that petitioner has met his burden of demonstrating that our intervention is warranted, see Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004), and therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion in this matter. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Din. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition ea IED.

C.J.

A-ts2

Stiglich Silver cc: Luis Alonso Hidalgo, III

Bar Counsel, State Bar of Nevada 'We construe petitioner's "disciplinary appeal pursuant to SCR 105" as a petition for a writ of mandamus, as this court lacks jurisdiction under SUPREME COURT SCR 105 to consider an appeal from the State Bar's decision not to pursue OF

NEVADA disciplinary charges against an attorney. (0)1947A

II-1132 2-