Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ISAAC ASUSTA, Appellant, v. CHARLES DANIELS, DIRECTOR, THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
Isaac Asusta appeals from an order of the district court dismissing a petition for a writ of prohibition. Seventh Judicial District Court, White Pine County; Steve L. Dobrescu, Judge.
Asusta argues the district court erred by dismissing his July 28, 2021, petition. In his petition, Asusta claimed that the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) is acting in excess of its jurisdiction by removing funds from his inmate account to satisfy the award of restitution in his underlying judgment of conviction. Asusta asserted that his judgment of conviction did not identify any victims and he therefore should not have to pay restitution. Because he believes he should not have to pay restitution, Asusta sought an order prohibiting the director of NDOC from deducting money from his inmate account to pay the restitution obligation.
A writ of prohibition may issue to arrest the proceedings of a lower court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the jurisdiction of the lower court. NRS 34.320. A writ prohibition will not issue, however, if the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.330. “Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d. 840, 844 (2004). “We generally review a district court's grant or denial of writ relief for an abuse of discretion.” Roller v. State, 122 Nev. 223, 226, 130 P.3d 653, 655 (2003).
We agree with the district court's conclusion that a writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy for the underlying challenge, as Asusta has failed to demonstrate that he does not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. Asusta therefore failed to meet his burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief was warranted. Accordingly, we discern no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision, and we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
Gibbons, C.J
Bulla, J.
Westbrook, J.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 84953-COA
Decided: February 27, 2023
Court: Court of Appeals of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)