Solano (Roberto) v. Dist. Ct. (The City of Las Vegas) ( 2016 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ROBERTO SOLANO, No. 69170
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MAY 0 9 2016
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE ROB
BARE, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
THE CITY OF LAS VEGAS,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the
district court's dismissal of petitioner's appeal for failure to prosecute.
The petition was filed November 17, 2015. Although "Mlle petitioner shall
submit with the petition an appendix," NRAP 21(a)(4) (emphasis added),
an appendix to the petition was not received until December 10, 2015.
Petitioner did not submit the appendix with his petition; thus he did not
demonstrate circumstances warranting our review, see Pan v. Eighth
Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004)
("Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief
is warranted.").
Moreover, petitioner requests a writ mandating the
respondent district court hear his appeal on the merits. "The Nevada
Constitution vests the district courts with final appellate jurisdiction in all
cases arising in the justices' courts." Id. at 227, 88 P.3d at 843; see Nev.
Const. art 6, § 6. This court has generally declined to consider writ
petitions that request review of a district court's decision when acting in
SUPREME COURT
OF its appellate capacity, save for a few exceptions. State v. Eighth Judicial
NEVADA
(0) 1947A e.
Dist. Court (Hedland), 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000). We
conclude that petitioner fails to demonstrate an exception to our general
rule, as he fails to demonstrate the district court "improperly refused to
exercise its jurisdiction, . . . exceeded its jurisdiction, or . . . exercised its
discretion in an arbitrary or capricious manner." Id.; see also NRS 34.160;
NRS 177.015(1); NRS 189.060; NRS 189.065; State v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011)
(defining arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion and manifest abuse
of discretion).
Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.'
J.
Hardesty
J. J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Rob Bare, District Judge
Mueller Hinds & Associates
Attorney General/Carson City
Las Vegas City Attorney
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'The motion to strike City of Las Vegas as the real party in interest
and petitioner's motion to amend the petition by removing party of
interest are denied as moot. We direct the clerk of the court to file
petitioner's appendix received December 10, 2015, and the amended
petition received on December 9, 2015.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A Atez