BONHAM v. WILLIAMS (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Review of the notice of appeal reveals a jurisdictional defect. The challenged district court order denies appellant's “Motion in Support of Preliminary Injunction & T.P.O. and Retaliation and Motion to Request Order” and “Motion to Request Order & Judicial Notice.” No statute or court rule appears to allow an appeal from this order. See Castillo v. State, 106 Nev. 349, 352, 792 P.2d 1133, 1135 (1990) (“[T]he right to appeal is statutory; where no statutory authority to appeal is granted, no right to appeal exists.”).

We recognize that NRAP 3A(b)(3) permits an appeal from a district court order denying a preliminary injunction in a civil action. However, habeas proceedings are neither civil nor criminal for all purposes; habeas is a special statutory remedy that is “essentially unique.” Hill v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 96 Nev. 38, 40, 604 P.2d 807, 808 (1980). The Legislature has provided for appeals from orders granting or denying petitions for writs of habeas corpus, but has enacted no provision allowing appeals from orders granting or denying motions for preliminary injunctions in postconviction habeas proceedings. It therefore appears that such orders are not appealable when entered in postconviction habeas proceedings. Cf. Mazzan v. State, 109 Nev. 1067, 1072, 863 P.2d 1035, 1038 (1993) (rejecting an argument that an order denying a motion to change venue in a habeas corpus proceeding is appealable as the functional equivalent of a motion to change the place of trial in a civil action that is appealable under NEAP 3A(b)(2) and explaining that if the Legislature had intended to make such orders appealable, it would have expressly done so within the provisions of NRS Chapter 34). Accordingly, it appears this court lacks jurisdiction and we

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.