KENT HOLTORF v. NEVADA STATE BOARD OF PHARMACY (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges the Nevada State Board of Pharmacy's authority to proceed with an administrative enforcement hearing and seeks a writ directing the Board either to dismiss the complaint, citation, and fine against petitioner for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or to rule on petitioner's motion to dismiss before the hearing. Petitioner also asks that the Board be directed to adopt rules of practice concerning pre-hearing motions to dismiss, and he seeks a stay of the upcoming hearing pending our consideration of this petition.

Mandamus is properly requested to compel the performance of a legally required act, NRS 34.160; Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196-97 (2020), but traditionally, only when the petitioner has a clear right to the relief requested, and when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170; Halverson v. Sec'y of State, 124 Nev. 484, 487, 186 P.3d 893, 896 (2008). Prohibition may issue when a board exceeds its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. This court has recognized that petitions “for such relief should be directed to and resolved by the district court in the first instance.” Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981); see State v. County of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that “this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court” in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Att'y Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Whether a petition seeking writ relief will be considered by this court 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 review is warranted, Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. It is not clear from what is currently before this court that the Board lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the matter before it, and the Board has not addressed petitioner's arguments against jurisdiction yet. We decline to intervene to direct the Board how to proceed. Petitioner may raise these issues in any district court petition for judicial review of the Board's decision, if appropriate. Accordingly, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy precluding writ relief, and we thus

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Pickering, J.

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, and because petitioner did not properly seek stay relief by separate motion, his request for a stay of the administrative proceedings is denied.