V. v. Dist. Ct. (Clark Cty. Dep'T Of Family Servs.)

Nevada Supreme Court December 13, 2022

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JASON V., No 85772 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, fiF IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DEC 1 3 2022 ROBERT TEUTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; RHODECIA J.; ELTON L.; N.L., A MINOR.; AND R.J., A MINOR, Real. Parties in interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR. WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of man.damus raises pretrial due process concerns regarding a termination of parental rights trial scheduled to conunence this morthng. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay. Whether to issue extraordinary writ relief is solely within this court's discretion, Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev..674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that such relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, In Nev. 222, 228, 88 P,3d 840, 844 (2004). .Having•reviewed the petition and appendix, We decline to intervene. Trial apparently is ongoing, and petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief requested under the circumsta.nces warranting extraordinary intervention at this time. See SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 19,17A .4415r , 2.2 - 31P:71. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 681-82, 476 P.3d II 94,

1197 (2020) (providing that, to obtain the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, a petitioner must establish a clear legal right to the course of action requested). Further, to the extent that petitioner seeks to develop such a right, petitioner may raise these arguments in the context of any appeal from an adverse final judgment, and he has not shown that any such appeal would be inadequate to remedy the• alleged due process violations. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 ("[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

iA6L.t J. Hardesty

, J. Stiglich Herndon

cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Ford & Friedman, LLC Law Office of Alyssa Aklestad, LLC Jennifer McDonald Law Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc, Nevada Justice Group, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk

'In light of this order, we deny as m.00t petitioner's emergency motion for stay. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 I 947A ..r4S6).>

Opinion

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA JASON V., No 85772 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, fiF IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DEC 1 3 2022 ROBERT TEUTON, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES; RHODECIA J.; ELTON L.; N.L., A MINOR.; AND R.J., A MINOR, Real. Parties in interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR. WRIT OF MANDAMUS This original petition for a writ of man.damus raises pretrial due process concerns regarding a termination of parental rights trial scheduled to conunence this morthng. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay. Whether to issue extraordinary writ relief is solely within this court's discretion, Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev..674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that such relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, In Nev. 222, 228, 88 P,3d 840, 844 (2004). .Having•reviewed the petition and appendix, We decline to intervene. Trial apparently is ongoing, and petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief requested under the circumsta.nces warranting extraordinary intervention at this time. See SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 19,17A .4415r , 2.2 - 31P:71. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 681-82, 476 P.3d II 94, 1197 (2020) (providing that, to obtain the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, a petitioner must establish a clear legal right to the course of action requested). Further, to the extent that petitioner seeks to develop such a right, petitioner may raise these arguments in the context of any appeal from an adverse final judgment, and he has not shown that any such appeal would be inadequate to remedy the• alleged due process violations. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 ("[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.' iA6L.t J. Hardesty , J. Stiglich Herndon cc: Hon. Robert Teuton, District Judge, Family Court Division Ford & Friedman, LLC Law Office of Alyssa Aklestad, LLC Jennifer McDonald Law Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc, Nevada Justice Group, Ltd. Eighth District Court Clerk 'In light of this order, we deny as m.00t petitioner's emergency motion for stay. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 I 947A ..r4S6).>

Reference

Status: Published