SNYDER v. Lauara Ann Snyder, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

In this original, emergency petition for extraordinary writ relief, petitioner seeks a writ directing the district court to grant him certain, relief with respect to the divorce proceedings.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, it appears that, in filing this writ petition, petitioner is attempting to reply to the answering brief filed in his consolidated appeals from a divorce decree, Docket Numbers 81887-COA, 82756-COA, and 83029-COA, and have his appendix considered with the reply. Indeed, the writ petition largely parallels the reply brief filed by petitioner in the appeals. This is an inappropriate use of the writ procedures. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; NRS 34.320; NRS 34.330. Moreover, these matters have already been addressed in the consolidated appeals: petitioner has filed his reply brief, the record on appeal has been filed, and petitioner has been allowed to file an appendix containing transcripts, as requested. Accordingly, it appears that the complete record is now before us in the consolidated appeals, and we conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted. Therefore, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's motions to initiate a criminal investigation and to terminate real party in interest's counsel's representation are denied as moot.