Mitchell v. The First Jud. Dist. Ct.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHAD WINDHAM MITCHELL, No. 84693

Petitioner,

Vs.

THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FI L. = D

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

CARSON CITY, JUN 30 2022

Respondent.

culRBPRTS At

Berea

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to file his “petition for a court order’.

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. See NRS 34.160; Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court’s sound discretion. D.H. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears 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). Further, it is petitioner’s responsibility to provide this court with all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition. NRAP 21(a)(4).

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief.

Supreme Count See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix NevaDA (07 [947A Ei 2g- ——

Supreme Count

OF

Nevaba (0) 19974 SRE containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.! o q

Parraguirre } Au. Lak, od.

Hardesty

Aba aL , Ji

Stiglich ~ ec: Chad Windham Mitchell

Carson City District Attorney

Carson City Clerk

‘Accordingly, we take no action on appellant’s pro per letters filed on May 17, 2022, May 25, 2022, and June 7, 2022.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CHAD WINDHAM MITCHELL, No. 84693 Petitioner, vs.

THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

FILE CARSON CITY, JUN 30 2022 Respondent. ELIZABETH A. BROWN CLERK • SUPREME COURT BY DEPU1 CLERK

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to file his "petition for a court order". 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. See NRS 34.160; lnt'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.H. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears 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). Further, it is petitioner's responsibility to provide this court with all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition. NRAP 21(a)(4).

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. SUPREME COURT See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix OF

NEVADA

I947A aciako

20(07 containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.1

Parraguirre

J. Hardesty

J. Stiglich cc: Chad Windham Mitchell

Carson City District Attorney

Carson City Clerk

'Accordingly, we take no action on appellant's pro per letters filed on SUPREME COURT

May 17, 2022, May 25, 2022, and June 7, 2022.

OF

NEVADA

10) 1947A