JONDREW LACHAUX v. DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES (2024)

AMENDED ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges the district court's jurisdiction over a termination of parental rights proceeding. Having considered the petition, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted for several reasons. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted). To begin, petitioner has not submitted an appendix with the materials essential to understanding the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Further, petitioner has failed to show the lack of a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Indeed, petitioner previously challenged the district court's jurisdiction in Docket No. 86436, and an appeal is generally a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy precluding writ relief. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   On March 29, 2024, this court entered an order denying the petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition that included Justice Douglas Herndon's signature. His signature was included in error as he is disqualified in this matter and did not participate in the decision.