Harris (Ammar) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2022 )

. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
AMMAR ASIM FARUQ HARRIS, No. 85060
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK, AUG 1 0 2022
Respondent, A_ BROWN
REi4E COURT
and
THE STATE OF NEVADA, OE U CLERK
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus
challenging the indictment underlying petitioner's judgment of conviction.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our
extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS
31170: Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840,
841 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and
adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of
demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not supplied
an appendix with copies of any documentation supporting his petition. See
NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that the petitioner shall submit an appendix
containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in
the petition"). Further, even assuming that the relief sought here could be
properly obtained through a petition for a writ of mandamus, any
application for such relief should first be directed to and resolved by the
district, court. See State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d
1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
101 I947A 22-15013
[for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district
court" in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v.
Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly,
we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
c14-4 , J. ,Ai t36(24 ,J
Hardesty Stiglich
cc: Ammar Asim Faruq Harris
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
CO) 1947A