KING v. STATE (2020)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Matthew James King appeals from an order of the district court denying a petition for a writ of mandamus filed on May 16, 2019.¹ Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Linda Marie Bell, Chief Judge.

In his petition, King challenged the Board of Parole Commissioners’ decision to deny him parole. He argued that the use of gender to increase his parole score violated his due process and equal protection rights. He also argued that the parole guidelines constituted an ex post facto violation because they were adopted after he was convicted.

We review a district court's order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus for an abuse of discretion. See City of Reno v. Reno Gazette-Journal, 119 Nev. 55, 58, 63 P.3d 1147, 1148 (2003). The district court concluded that because parole is an act of grace, King had no constitutional right to parole, and therefore, no cause of action to challenge the denial of his parole. We agree. See NRS 213.10705; see also Severance v. Armstrong, 96 Nev. 836, 839, 620 P.2d 369, 370 (1980) (because a Nevada inmate has no legitimate expectation of parole release, he has no “constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to invoke due process”). Therefore, we conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the petition, and we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   King filed his claims in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Based on the nature of the claims raised in his petition, the district court construed the petition as a petition for a writ of mandamus. We conclude the district court did not err by so construing the petition.