DONALD ROBIN BARREN v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Donald Robin Barren appeals from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed on May 2, 2024.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge.

Barren contends that the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) is not awarding him appropriate statutory good time and work credit and that his parole revocation hearing was not fair and impartial. The district court concluded Barren was challenging the computation of time served and denied the petition because Barren had a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law through a postconviction habeas petition. See NRS 34.170 (providing that mandamus relief is not available when there is a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy). Consistent with our opinion in Smith v. State, 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 81, 561 P.3d 1079 (Ct. App. 2024), we conclude that the district court did not err by denying his claim for credits.

To the extent Barren challenges the revocation of his parole, mandamus is not an appropriate vehicle in which to challenge that decision because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is an available legal remedy. See NRS 34.170; see also NRS 34.360 (“Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.”); Hornback v. Warden, 97 Nev. 98, 100, 625 P.2d 83, 84 (1981) (considering a parole revocation challenge raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the petition. See Chittenden v. Justice Ct. of Pahrump Twp., 140 Nev., Adv. Op. 5, 544 P.3d 919, 927 (Ct. App. 2024) (reviewing order denying mandamus relief for abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Barren alternatively sought a writ of prohibition. However, he does not provide cogent argument regarding that relief; therefore, we need not consider it on appeal. See Maresca v. State, 103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987).