YUXIA ZHANG AND KIMBALL AUSTIN SACHS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2024)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the district court to reconvene the grand jury pursuant to NRS 172.241(5).¹

It is petitioners’ burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Problematically, petitioners have not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support their claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing petitioners must submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition” and explaining that “Rule 30(i), which prohibits pro se parties from filing an appendix, shall not apply to a petition for relief filed under this Rule and thus pro se writ petitions shall be accompanied by an appendix as required by this Rule”). Moreover, a writ of mandamus will not issue when petitioners have a “plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” Gumm v. State, Dep't of Educ., 121 Nev. 371, 375, 113 P.3d 853. 856 (2005); NRS 34.170, and here, petitioners have not established that an eventual appeal would not afford an adequate legal remedy. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to intervene in this matter and

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Because the filing fee was waived for this writ petition arising from a criminal matter, we deny as moot petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

2.   In light of this order, petitioners’ emergency motion to change venue is denied as moot.