Blandino (Kim) Vs. Dist. Ct. Sheriff (State) ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                              IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    KIM BLANDINO,                                              No. 83958
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    JOSEPH LOMBARDO, SHERIFF; THE
    HONORABLE MICHELLE LEAVITT,                                  FILED
    DISTRICT JUDGE; AND THE
    HONORABLE LINDA MARIE BELL, OF
    DEC 2 3 2021
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT                             EL
    LE
    spcwn
    EINE COUR1
    COURT,                                                 BY
    ERX
    Respondents,
    and
    THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    Real Party in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT RELIEF
    This is an emergency, pro se, original petition for extraordinary
    writ relief challenging the district court's alleged refusal to enter written
    orders on its oral decisions after August 24 and December 2, 2021,
    hearings.'
    We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and
    we decline to exercise original jurisdiction at this time. NRS 34.020; NRS
    34.160; NRS 34.170. See also 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
    'Petitioner has not demonstrated compelling reasons for seeking
    emergency relief within two days of filing this petition. NRAP 27(e)
    (explaining that a petitioner must certify that emergency relief is needed to
    avoid irreparable harm).
    &PRONE COURT
    ! OF
    riEVADA
    (0) 19+%   Oeign,
    ::'..
    21 -36463
    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).
    Petitioner has not demonstrated need for a written order indicating that an
    earlier no contact order still controls so as to warrant our intervention, and
    the district court orally recognized petitioner's need for a written order on
    the revocation motion heard in December. This court is confident that the
    district court will resolve all pending matters, by written order as
    appropriate, as expeditiously as the court's calendar permits. State, Div.
    Child & Fam. Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 445
    , 451, 
    92 P.3d 1239
    , 1243 (2004) (stating that an order must be written, signed, and
    filed). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    ,
    Parraguirre
    444)C-L-0                  J.
    Stiglich
    cc:   Hon. Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge
    Hon. Michelle Leavitt, District Judge
    Kim Blandino
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 83958

Filed Date: 12/23/2021

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/29/2021