TODD ROBBEN TY ROBBEN v. WALLACE MILLSAP LLC (2024)

ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks various forms of relief related to justice court proceedings. The petition is 70 pages in length, and the certificate of compliance certifies only that it contains less than 14,000 words. Under NRAP 21(d), a writ petition must contain no more than 15 pages or less than 7,000 words, unless the court grants leave to file a longer petition. This petition well exceeds both limits.

Petitioner Todd Robben has filed a motion for leave to file an overlarge petition, citing to the urgent nature of the petition and the issues raised therein. Having considered petitioner's motion, it is denied. Review of the petition reveals that it exceeds the type-volume limit by more than double, is unnecessarily repetitive, and frequently includes embedded images rather than citations to the appendix. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Moreover, petitioner has not supported his petition with a complete appendix documenting all of his assertions, as required by NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioners must submit with the petition an appendix that includes “a copy of ․ parts of the record before the respondent judge ․ , or any other original document that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”), although a few relevant documents were provided with the petition and the supplement thereto. Finally, a party aggrieved by a justice court decision typically has an adequate and speedy legal remedy in the form of an appeal to the district court, see Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969), and thus this court generally declines to entertain writ petitions requesting review of a justice court's order or a district court's appellate decision. See State of Nevada v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000). Petitioners petition does not adequately address why this court should review the justice court's actions in the first instance or ask this court to review the district court's alleged actions in refusing to file a petition or appeal concerning the matter, and petitioner also seeks relief beyond that available on mandamus or prohibition. Accordingly, we conclude that petitioner has not met his burden to demonstrate that this court's consideration of his overlength petition is warranted, see Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and we

ORDER the petition DISMISSED.¹

Cadish, C.J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order and because judicial notice of facts stated in an affidavit is not appropriate, NRS 47.130(1), we deny petitioner's motion to take judicial notice.