BRIAN KERRY KEEFE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging an order declaring petitioner a vexatious litigant and seeking a writ directing the district court to file a proposed petition for a writ of habeas corpus. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within our sole discretion, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

While petitioner Brian Kerry O'Keefe correctly raises his issues via a writ petition as he does not otherwise have an adequate remedy, see Peck v. Crouser, 129 Nev. 120, 124, 295 P.3d 586, 588 (2013) (observing that a writ petition is the proper means of challenging a vexatious litigant order), having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we are not persuaded that he is entitled to a writ of mandamus. To the extent O'Keefe contends that the vexatious litigant order violates his First Amendment right to free speech, we note it is well recognized that “baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment.” Wolfe v. George, 486 F.3d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bill Johnson's Rests., Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 (1983)); Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1298 (11th Cir. 2002) (‘‘A vexatious litigant does not have a First Amendment right to abuse official processes with baseless filings in order to harass someone to the point of distraction or capitulation.”). Moreover, the district court's order permits O'Keefe to submit filings so long as the district court first reviews them to ensure that they have arguable merit and are not intended to harass. See Filipas v. Lemons, 835 F.2d 1145, 1146 (6th Cir. 1987) (observing that such a procedure complies with the First Amendment). Having reviewed the habeas petition O'Keefe submitted to the district court, we cannot conclude the district court abused its direction in declining to file it. See Drew v. Manpower of S. Nev., Nos. 52129 & 55337, 2010 WL 3295282 (Order Affirming in Part, Reversing in Part, and Remanding (Docket No. 52129), and Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Docket No. 55337)) (Nev. July 20, 2010) (reviewing a district court's refusal to file a document from a vexatious litigant for an abuse of discretion). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.