Douglas v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2013 )

 way of extraordinary relief. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.
Accordingly, we conclude that the petition should be denied. We are,
however, concerned by petitioner's allegation that the district court's law
clerk, instead of the district court judge, purported to rule on several of
petitioner's motions. We caution respondents that law clerks are
precluded from exercising any judicial authority, including ruling on
motions, See Sullivan v. District Court, 111 Nev. 1367, 1370 n.5, 904 P.2d
1039, 1041 n.5 (1995) (providing that "a judge's law clerk lacks judicial
authority"), and any unfiled documents received in a department should
be routed to the clerk's office for processing.
It is so ORDERED.'
Gibbons
Saitta
'We direct the clerk of this court to file petitioner's motions
provisionally received on May 29 and 31, 2012, and we conclude that no
action is necessary on these motions as this court has already granted
petitioner's motion to waive the filing fee. We also direct the clerk of this
court to file petitioner's June 22, 2012, supplement to the petition. We
have considered this supplement in our resolution of this petition.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
cc: Hon. Bill Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division
Eric T. Douglas
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A