OUR NEVADA JUDGES INC v. The State of Nevada; and Jaymie Ruthanne Mitchell, Real Parties in Interest. (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the district court to grant a request to allow camera access throughout an as-of-yet unscheduled jury trial.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 1.97, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). 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). Petitioner bears 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).

Problematically, as noticed by the petitioner, the district court has granted a motion for a continuance in the below proceedings, and therefore the order challenged by this petition is moot. This court normally will not consider a petition, for extraordinary relief in the absence of a challenged written order and we decline to do so here. See Bust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.