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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate a burglary conviction and have a hearing held on a supplemental postconviction petition. 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). Having considered the petition and the supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that extraordinary relief is warranted. First, as to petitioner seeking a writ directing the district court to hold a hearing on his supplemental postconviction petition, we are confident that the district court will promptly and expeditiously resolve the supplement as its docket allows such that writ relief is not warranted at this time. Additionally, petitioner has presented his argument regarding the burglary conviction in the petition pending before the district court and, if the district court denies the petition, petitioner has a right to an appeal. NRS 34.575(1) (providing a right to appeal the denial of a postconviction habeas corpus petition); NRS 34.170 (stating that a writ of mandamus will not issue when there is a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy at law”); Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing the right to an appeal as generally being an adequate remedy at law the precludes writ relief). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the issues raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction at this time. NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.