Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
JAIME MENDOZA, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK AND THE HONORABLE TIERRA DANIELLE JONES, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus that seeks an order compelling the district court to reassign petitioner's case to the department in which it was originally assigned. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Tierra Danielle Jones, Judge.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, including the transcripts of proceedings, we are not persuaded that Mendoza has demonstrated that our discretionary, extraordinary intervention is warranted. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that this court has sole discretion in determining if a writ petition will be considered); Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted). Having considered the unique circumstances of this case, we cannot say that the district court manifestly abused its considerable discretion in reassigning this case from Department 8 to Department 28 pursuant to Nevada Rule of Criminal Practice 2(1)(B). State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 779-80 (2011). N.R.Cr.P. 2(1) provides that “defendant shall be randomly assigned to a department of the court and shall remain such department until final disposition of the action, unless ․ (B) assigned as ordered by the chief judge consistent with a plan of court-wide case management.” Here, the court corrected its apparent initial erroneous assignment and reassigned petitioner's case consistent with its plan of court-wide case management, as memorialized in EJDC 1.60(a). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.1
Herndon, C.J.
Parraguirre, J.
Stiglich, J.
FOOTNOTES
1. Given our disposition, we deny as moot Mendoza's motion for stay of the district court proceedings. We further vacate the April 1, 2025, order directing the State, on behalf of respondents, to file an answering brief and petitioner to file a reply.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 90267
Decided: April 18, 2025
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)