Shahrokhi v. The Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ALI SHAHROKHI, No. 85655
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
FM.
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DEC 6 2022
CLARK; THE HONORABLE BILL A. BROVVW
PREPF; c.ou•cr
HENDERSON, DISTRICT JUDGE; AND BY
THE HONORABLE MATHEW CLEtitti
HARTER, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, MANDAMUS, OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of habeas corpus, mandamus,
or prohibition challenges a November 3, 2022, district court order approving
a hearing master's recommendations in a child support enforcement action,
a suspended 5-day jail sentence, and an October 12, 2020, evaluation order
in the related child custody case. Petitioner has also filed an emergency
motion to quash a bench warrant that, he claims, is invalid for containing
no judge's signature.
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, 1 20 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 ¡natters set forth
in the petition. NRAP 21(a)(4).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) I947A
2 2 - &,5) 306
On May 22, 2022, this court affirmed the district court's child
custody and vexatious litigant orders. Shahrokhi v. Burrow, Nos. 81978,
82245 & 83726, 2022 WL 1509740 (Order of Affirmance and Dismissing
Appeal in Part). Thereafter, in a separate child support enforcement case,
the hearing master held a hearing on October 3, 2022, to address a
continued order to show cause. Petitioner failed to attend, and the hearing
master recommended that he be sanctioned with 5 additional days jail time
and that a bench warrant issue, with the jail time to be stayed to allow
petitioner to purge the sanctions by paying the owed child support for each
of the next 6 months. Petitioner filed a motion to quash that bench warrant,
which was scheduled to be heard on December 27, 2022. According to the
hearing master's October 11, 2022, report and recommendations, the
hearing master declined to hear the motion to quash at an earlier time
because all petitioner had to do to quash the bench warrant was to pay one
month's child support, and so there was no need for an order shortening
time.
Thereafter, on October 24, 2022, the district court clerk issued
an order deeming the October 3 recommendations approved, as no objection
was filed, and on November 3, 2002, the district court entered an order
approving the October 11 recommendations regarding the motion to quash,
again stating that no objection had been filed.
Petitioner asserts that he filed an objection to the hearing
master's October 3 recommendations on October 21, 2022, and provided a
copy of that document. However, it is not clear that that objection was
timely or properly filed. On November 11, petitioner received notice from
the court that his attempted filings in the custody of case challenging the
master's recommendations were improper because they should have been
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(01 1947A
filed in child support enforcement case, with further instructions included.
It does not appear that petitioner attempted to comply with those
instructions in any manner or that they require petitioner to obtain
permission to object to the hearing master's recommendations (the
instructions remind petitioner of the requirement to obtain permission to
file motions). Further, petitioner has not met his burden t,o demonstrate
that the court clerk improperly complied with NRS 425.3844 (allowing the
clerk ta deem approved unobjected-to recommendations), that any of the
subject orders is void due to Judge Dawn Throne's disqualification or
otherwise, or that the district court has improperly ignored any continuing
subject-matter jurisdiction arguments. Finally, as the custody decision has
been affirmed, the evaluation order issue is moot. Petitioner has not shown
that' our.extraordinary intervention is warranted, and we therefore
ORDER the petition DENIED.1
C.j.
arraguirre
J.
Stiglich Herndon
cc: Chief Judge, Eighth Judicial District Court
Hon. Bin Henderson, District Judge, Family Court Division
Ali Shahrokhi
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
'Petitioner's emergency motion to quash is denied.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
101 I947A