KATHRYN SHARON MATTOS v. THE JUSTICE COURT OF THE CITY OF SPARKS AND THE HONORABLE CHRISTIAN WILSON (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND/OR PROHIBITION

These three pro se petitions for writs of mandamus and/or prohibition assert various issues in relation to criminal proceedings against petitioner in the Sparks and Reno Justice and Municipal Courts.¹

Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007), and it is petitioner's burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having reviewed the petitions and the single document provided in support, we conclude, without reaching the merits of any claims, that petitioner has failed to meet her burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. We also note that petitioner has not provided this court with pertinent exhibits or documents in support of her petitions. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understanding] the matters set forth in the petition”). Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in these matters, see NRAP 21(b), and we

ORDER the petitions DENIED.

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As petitioner's filing fee has been waived, we deny as moot her motions to proceed in forma pauperis.