CHARLENE ROGERS ENS LEGIS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS/PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus/prohibition challenges various actions and failures to act by the Las Vegas Municipal Court, as well as that court's jurisdiction.¹

We have considered the documents on file with this court, and we conclude that our intervention by extraordinary writ is not warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). We note that, while petitioner provided this court with copies of petitioner's district court filings, a docket sheet from one of the cases, and emails, insufficient documentation of district court action (or failure to act) pertaining to the allegations set forth in the petition was included in the appendix. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”). Regardless, writ relief generally is not available to tell a lower court how to manage its docket, see generally Dornbach v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 305, 312, 324 P.3d 369, 373-74 (2014); when this court's decision would have no effect on issue as it currently stands, Johnston v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 138 Nev. 700, 703, 518 P.3d 94, 99 (2022); or when the petitioner may raise the issues on appeal from any conviction, see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (recognizing that “the right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief’); Tripp v. City of Sparks, 92 Nev. 362, 550 P.2d 419 (1976) (noting that district courts have final appellate jurisdiction over municipal court orders); NRCrP 19. Because these standards preclude our further consideration of this writ petition, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

Herndon, C.J.

Parraguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   As the filing fee has been waived in this matter, we take no action on petitioner's affidavit and motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

2.   In light of this order, any and all other relief requested in petitioner's filings is denied.