Hudson (Michael) Vs. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •         IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    MICHAEL HUDSON,                                          No. 83319
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
    WASHOE,
    FILED
    Respondent,                                                 AUG 2 6 2021
    and                                                      ELIZABETH A. BROWN
    CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,                                          < ‘,/
    BY
    Real Party in Interest.                                       DF_PtilY CLERK
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus
    challenges petitioner's conviction. Petitioner asserts that (1) he was
    sexually assaulted by prison staff; (2) illegally placed in a "sling hoise; (3)
    subject to a separate "viscous assault"; (4) the State has committed records
    fraud in his criminal case CR19-3112; and (5) he is innocent of the charges
    brought against him.
    At the outset, we note that petitioner has not provided this
    court with exhibits or other docurnentation that would support his claims
    for relief.   See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an
    appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set
    forth in the petition); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 228,
    
    88 P.3d 840
    , 844 (2004) C``Petitioned cardies] the burden of demonstrating
    that extraordinary relief is warranted.").
    Moreover, having considered the petition, we are not persuaded
    that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and
    '
    ••         r                              •oy
    adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the district
    court's denial of such relief in the first instance.     See NRAP 22 CAn
    application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the
    appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and
    denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order
    denying the writ."); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 
    88 P.3d at 841
     (writ relief
    is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law).
    Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    Hardesty
    Parraguirre
    •
    J.
    Cadish
    cc:   Michael Hudson
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Washoe County District Attorney
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2
    ((>) i947A   Map
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 83319

Filed Date: 8/26/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/6/2021