PICENO v. BAKER (2021)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Our review of this appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The December 2, 2020, order purportedly denying Piceno's petition did not resolve all of the claims Piceno raised. Specifically, the order did not address the claims raised in Piceno's initial petition.¹ Therefore, we conclude this order did not constitute a final written order, and we must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See NRAP 4(a)(1); Rust v. Clark Cty. School Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that the district court's oral pronouncement from the bench, the clerk's minute order, and even an unfiled written order cannot be appealed). Accordingly, we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The district court's order states it filed a written order disposing of those claims on July 8, 2020, but no such order is in the record on appeal. This court requested a copy of this order from the district court and was informed no such order was ever filed.