SHERIL WILLIS PROVSTGAARD v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks to compel the district court to quash bench warrants, allow petitioner to appear at a hearing remotely to avoid being arrested on the bench warrants, refer several county employees for federal prosecution, and appoint conflict-free counsel or confirm his pro se status. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion to stay the district court proceedings.

Mandamus is properly requested to compel the district court to perform a legally required act or to correct a manifest abuse or arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; State v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779 (2011). Prohibition may issue when a district court exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. Whether a petition seeking such extraordinary relief will be considered by this court, however, is purely discretionary, Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851-52 (1991), and it is the petitioner's burden to demonstrate that writ relief is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having reviewed the petition, motion, and appendix in this matter, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Petitioner has not shown that the district court failed to comply with a legal mandate, acted arbitrarily or capriciously, or lacks jurisdiction over the criminal cases before it. Petitioner's primary assertion appears to be that he is prevented from appearing in person to represent himself before the district court, even to challenge the validity of the bench warrants, due to threat of arrest on the outstanding warrants. However, he points to no authority, and we have found none, requiring the court to accommodate his desire to both represent himself and avoid arrest by allowing remote access or by quashing the warrants. Moreover, although his representative apparently spoke with a court clerk, it does not appear that petitioner actually sought and has been denied the requested relief from the district court, and petitioner has not provided any order or ruling of the district court for review. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied. As the filing fee has been waived, petitioner's motion to proceed forma pauperis is denied as moot.