BRIT AUGBORNE v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER DENYING MANDAMUS PETITIONS

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeking the dismissal of a criminal charge, as well as a second petition seeking the same thing.

Petitioner seeks the dismissal of a criminal charge of prohibited person in possession of a firearm. Petitioner claims that a number of his rights are being violated by the State's disposal of evidence and the manner in which the prosecution has proceeded.

Having considered the petition, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing that such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). We also note that petitioner has not provided this court with documents “essential to understand[ing] the matters set forth in the petition.” NRAP 21(a)(4). Further, to the extent that petitioner has counsel, he must proceed by and through counsel of record. Thus, as petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, we take no action on petitioners notice to expedite proceedings.