AMINA JOHNSON v. SCOTT MAHONEY (2025)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Despite its caption and petitioner's service on only two parties, this original petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel compliance with NRCP 55 in three district court cases.¹ The writ petition raises essentially the same arguments as the petition in Johnson v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Docket No. 91672, which was denied on December 8, 2025.

Having reviewed the petition and accompanying appendix, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted, for the same reasons noted in the Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus in Docket No. 91672. 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). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Parrguirre, J.

Stiglich, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner seeks emergency relief, asserting that the district courts “denied entry of default and granted untimely motions without a proper Rule 60(b) filing, thereby reclaiming jurisdiction without authority and denying Petitioner due process.” Petitioner does not demonstrate that the failure to grant her petition within 14 days will result in irreparable harm, see NRAP 21(a)(6); NRAP 27(e), and thus, we decline to treat this matter as an emergency.On December 9, 2025, petitioner filed a “notice proof to proceed in forma pauperis.” We construe this notice as a motion to waive the filing fees under NRAP 21(g). Based on the documents attached to the notice, the motion is granted, and the filing fee in this matter is waived.