Porter (Justin) v. Dist. Ct. (State)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JUSTIN D. PORTER, No. 84377 Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Fl LED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 1. APR 2 1 2022 CLARK,

Respondent, and

THE STATE OF NEVADA,

Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus that would direct the district court to rule on a pending postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith v. Eighth Judwial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of the district court postconviction petition for a writ ?f habeas corpus he contends he filed—precluding writ 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").

Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

,C.J. T WIY Parraguirre

, J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich cc: Justin D. Porter

Attorney General/Carson City

Clark County District Attorney

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

Of

NEVADA (01 I947A