REYNOLDS v. Alfredo Medellin, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition seeks an order directing the district court to take various actions in the underlying custody matter.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int’l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court’s jurisdiction. See NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has discretion as to whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief and will not do so when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Petitioner challenges the district court’s determination as to paternity in the context of a child custody matter and asserts that she does not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. But petitioner fails to demonstrate why an appeal from the final judgment does not constitute an adequate remedy here. See Int’l Game Tech., Inc., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558 (noting that “an appeal from the final judgment typically constitutes an adequate and speedy legal remedy” precluding writ relief). Thus, having considered the petition, under the circumstances presented here, we conclude that our review is more appropriately carried out through an appeal with a full record, rather than reviewing this matter in a piecemeal fashion through this petition for extraordinary writ relief. See W. Cab Co. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 65, 67, 390 P.3d 662, 667 (2017) (recognizing that petitions for writ relief should not be utilized as a vehicle for piecemeal appellate review). Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to consider this matter and we therefore deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737.

It is so ORDERED.