GODERICK VILLADELGADO v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the Board of Parole Commissioners’ imposition of certain conditions of parole. The State filed a motion to dismiss the petition, arguing that the issue is moot because petitioner Goderick Villadelgado expired his sentence and is no longer subject to the challenged parole conditions. In his opposition to the motion to dismiss, Villadelgado concedes the issue is moot but argues this court should nevertheless consider his petition because the issue is capable of repetition yet evading review and the imposition of allegedly improper parole conditions is an issue of widespread importance.

Having reviewed the parties’ arguments, we conclude that the issue is moot, see Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010) (holding that a case that initially presents a live controversy may be rendered moot by subsequent events), and Villadelgado has failed to demonstrate this is an issue of widespread importance that is capable of repetition yet evading review, see Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 155, 158, 460 P.3d 976, 982 (2020) (recognizing an exception to the mootness doctrine where it is shown “that (1) the duration of the challenged action is relatively short, (2) there is a likelihood that a similar issue will arise in the future, and (3) the matter is important” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Specifically, Villadelgado has not shown that the challenged action—the imposition of parole conditions—is “too short in its duration to be fully litigated prior to its natural expiration,” and we conclude this matter is not one of the “exceptional situations” to which the mootness exception applies. In re Guardianship of L.S. & H.S., 120 Nev. 157, 161, 87 P.3d 521, 524 (2004). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DISMISSED.

Gibbons, C.J.

Bulla, J.

Westbrook, J.