Shahrokhi Vs. Dist. Ct. (Burrow) ( 2021 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
ALI SHAHROKHI, No. 83927
Petitioner,
VS.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT FILED
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF DEC 2 3 2021
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE A. BROWN
SUPREME COU
DAWN THRONE, DISTRICT JUDGE,
TY CLERK
Respondents,
and
KIZZY BURROW,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING FIRST AMENDMENT PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an emergency, pro se, original petition for a writ of
mandamus challenging a district court child custody order, as well as NRS
Chapter 125C in general, as violative of his First Amendment rights.
Having considered the petition and supporting documentation,
we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention
is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88
P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the
burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ
relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in
determining whether to entertain a writ petition). While we recognize that
petitioner is alleging significant issues regarding impingement of his
fundamental rights, those rights are not limitless, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406
U.S. 205, 233-34 (1972) CTo be sure, the power of the parent, even when
3 Me
••••• %:
• •I
-• ..
linked to a free exercise claim, may be subject to limitation . . . ."); Prince v.
Massachttsetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944) (And neither rights of religion nor
rights of parenthood are beyond limitation."); Marriage of Geske v.
Marcolina, 642 N.W.2d 62, 70 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) ("[S]everal other states
have noted that the best interests of children can be a compelling state
interest justifying a prior restraint of a parent's right of free speech."), and
those issues can be raised in petitioner's appeal from the child custody
order. As we have repeatedly emphasized, an appeal is generally an
adequate and speedy legal remedy that precludes writ relief. See NRS
34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. No exception to the general
rule applies here. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1 CJ
Hardesty
A4*•41,-.0 , J.
Stiglich
cc: Hon. Dawn Throne, District Judge, Family Court Division
Ali Shahrokhi
Kizzy Burrow
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
P.» 194 7A silailv
,