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.
NEVADA EX REL. John Francis ARPINO, Petitioner, v. The SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF WASHOE; and the Honorable Barry L. Breslow, District Judge, Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
This original pro se petition for a writ of prohibition challenges a November 7, 2018, district court order denying petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis.1 The application was denied after the district court reviewed, under a prior order restricting petitioner's court access, the petition that petitioner proposed to file in forma pauperis and determined that it was frivolous or brought for an improper purpose and did not implicate a fundamental right.
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991); see Jordan v. State ex rel. Dep't of Motor Vehicles & Pub. Safety, 121 Nev. 44, 110 P.3d 30 (2005) (distinguishing between pre-service review of complaints and orders restricting court access), abrogated on other grounds by Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas, 124 Nev. 224, 181 P.3d 670 (2008); Arpino v. Washoe Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs, Docket Nos. 70429-COA & 70494-COA (January 30, 2017, Order of Affirmance). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1. Petitioner has filed documents seeking correction of the caption and file-stamped copies of his petition and attachments. Although the State does not appear to bear an interest in this matter, neither any statute nor any court rule requires writ petitions to be captioned in the name of the State, and it is no longer “the universal rule of practice” to caption petitions such, we direct the clerk of this court to modify this docket's caption to reflect the caption on the petition and on this order. Cf. State v. District Court, 51 Nev. 206, 273 P. 659, 660 (1929); State v. Curler, 26 Nev. 347, 67 P. 1075, 1076 (1902), 55 C.J.S. Mandamus § 339 (2015); 72A C.J.S. Prohibition § 10 (2015). The clerk of this court shall also mail petitioner a file-stamped copy of his petition and attachments.
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. 77633
Decided: January 31, 2019
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)