Welch v. Daniels

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
KENTRELL DUMURIE WELCH, No. 85202
Petitioner,
vs.
THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
telZ
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE
PINE, SEP
Respondent, /1
! PFCMN
_
and CLERK Of: REML. 1...31.111.12
CFIARLES DANIELS, NDOC
DIRECTOR; AND WILLIAM RUE BART,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or
prohibition challenging the conditions of confinement of petitioner and
similarly situated inmates.
Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our
extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS
34.170; 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228,
88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that writ relief is proper only when
there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and petitioners bear
the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted).
Petitioner has not demonstrated that he requested and was
denied relief in the district court in the first instance. 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").
Even assuming the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a
petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, any application for such
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2_1—zcA368
relief should first be directed to and resolved by the district court in the first
instance so that the factual and legal issues can be fully developed,
providing an adequate appellate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp.
Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing
that an appellate court is not the appropriate forum to resolve questions of
fact and determining that when there are factual issues presented,
appellate courts will not exercise their discretion to entertain a petition for
extraordinary relief even if "important public interests are involved"); State
v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting
that "this court prefers that such an application [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); see also Walker v. Second
Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 684, 476 P.3d 1194, 1199 (2020) (noting
that this court typically will not entertain petitions for extraordinary relief
that implicate factual disputes). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
•de lk
V tA daiSA r. "46. 7 771 2
• •
1/44
Parraguirre
, J. , J.
Hardesty Stiglich
cc: Kentrell Durnurie Welch
Attorney General/Carson City
White Pine County Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
1(.11 19-17A
2