Orth (Sean) v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2022 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
SEAN RODNEY ORTH, No. 84180
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILE
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK, APR 1 4 20n
Respondent, ELIZABETH A. BROWN
CLERK9f SUPREME COURT
and By
DEPUTY CLERK
THE STATE OF NEVADA,
Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR
A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges actions
of the district court in continuing petitioner's preliminary hearing, denying
petitioner's motion to suppress evidence, and violating double jeopardy.
Petitioner also alleges the State manipulated the suppression proceedings
by withholding material information.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus,
and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole
discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial
Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner
bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004).
A writ of mandamus is not available when the petitioner has a plain,
speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Williams v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011);
see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. The opportunity to appeal a
final judgment typically provides an adequate legal renaedy. Williams 127
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 447A se*.
-I! ,
Nev. at 524, 262 P.3d at 364 (2011); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d
at 844 ([An] appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ
relief.") Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the
challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may
ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally
precludes writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841. Having
considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary
intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that an
appeal from a final judgment below would not be a plain, speedy, and
adequate legal remedy.
Additionally, we note that petitioner has not provided this court
with all the necessary exhibits or documentation 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"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the
claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter.
See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
J. "egi)C.1-.0 , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
OM 1947A oCilDico
cc: Sean Rodney Orth
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(01 1947A .6i2N0