JEROMY OELKER v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2023)

ORDER DENYING HABEAS

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of a judgment of conviction and seeking punitive damages and legal fees.

Petitioner does not allege that he previously sought and was denied habeas relief in the district court. See NRAP 22 (stating that “(a]n application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court” in the first instance). A petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be filed in the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that “an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact”); State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77. 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Cortez Masto v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013).

Petitioner bears the burden of showing that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 23(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Stiglich, C.J.

Cadish, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner has failed to provide proof of service upon respondent, thus constituting an additional reason to deny the petition.