BLANDINO v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF CLARK (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT RELIEF

This is an emergency, original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition and/or certiorari raising numerous issues and complaints concerning the criminal proceedings below and custody pending a competency evaluation.¹

Writ relief is not available if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See NRS 34.020; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). Further, writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and it is within the discretion of this court to determine if a petition will be considered. See Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 677, 679, 818 P.2d 851, 853. Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.

Having considered petitioner's petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Petitioner again raises several issues that we declined considering pretrial in Blandino v. Lombardo, Docket No. 80541-COA (Order Denying Petitions for Extraordinary Writ Relief, April 16, 2020). Additionally, the petition raises many factual concerns, which we have explained are better handled by the district court in the first instance. See id. (citing Round Hill General Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981)). Finally, to the extent petitioner seeks to compel the district court to rule on his May 2020 motion to disqualify, we anticipate that the district court will timely resolve any pending disqualification motions prior to trial. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); Smith, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.²

It is so ORDERED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner additionally filed a motion to exceed page limits on the petition and on the motion for stay of district court proceedings. We grant the motion in this instance but caution petitioner that such motions will not be granted in the future absent a showing of diligence and good cause. See NRAP 27(d)(2); NRAP 21(d); NRAP 32(a)(7)(D).

2.   Petitioner has also filed a motion for stay of the district court proceedings pending resolution of this petition. We deny the motion for stay as moot.