JOHN LUCKETT v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK AND THE HONORABLE JACQUELINE BLUTH DISTRICT JUDGE (2023)

ORDER RETURNING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND ADMINISTRATIVELY CLOSING CASE

This pro se emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order granting a motion to dismiss petitioner's action in the district court for lack of jurisdiction and granting opposing party's countermotion to impose limitations on petitioner consistent with his status as a vexatious litigant in the Eighth Judicial District Court.

On December 9, 2010, this court entered an order declaring petitioner a vexatious litigant and restricting his filing privileges. See Luckett v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Docket No. 55189 (Order Declaring Petitioner a Vexatious Litigant and Restricting Filing Privileges, December 9, 2010). That order provided that “petitioner may not file any original pro se writ petitions with this court, without payment of the filing fee, absent leave of the Chief Justice.” Before a petition is filed, the order explained, “petitioner must submit a copy of the proposed petition, an application for in forma pauperis status that accurately reflects petitioner's current financial status and explains why the fee should be waived, and a motion for leave to file the documents, explaining briefly and clearly why an appeal is not an adequate remedy.” Id.

On August 2, 2023, this court received petitioner's motion for leave to file the writ petition and proposed petition for writ of mandamus. Having considered the documents submitted, we conclude that petitioner has not satisfied the requirements set forth in this court's December 9, 2010, order. Specifically, he has not shown that an appeal is an inadequate remedy at law to challenge the denial of the peremptory challenge or submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Further, petitioner has not provided proof that the proposed petition for a writ of mandamus was served on any opposing party. See NRAP 25; NECFR 9. Accordingly, we direct the clerk of this court to return the petition and to administratively close this case.

It is so ORDERED.

Stiglich, C.J.