TURNER v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF CLARK (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's decisions to deny or take off calendar petitioners’ motions for copywork and other documents, as reflected in minutes dated July 11, 2017, September 12, 2017, and January 4, 2018.

Having reviewed the pro se petition and supporting documents, we decline to intervene. The district court appears to have denied petitioner's motions or taken them off calendar because petitioner failed to properly serve them on the respondent below. Further, with at least one motion, the court appears to have had difficulty in determining exactly what petitioner was seeking.

Likewise, here, it is difficult to determine exactly what petitioner is seeking, and petitioner's certificate of service does not demonstrate that this petition was served on the respondent district court, see NRAP 21(a)(1). Moreover, petitioner is challenging decisions that were entered more than one year ago, and it is unclear whether anything has transpired since then that would affect any review of those decisions now. See Bldg. & Const. Trades Council v. State, 108 Nev. 605, 611, 836 P.2d 633, 637 (1992) (“As an extraordinary remedy, a writ of mandamus is subject to the doctrine of laches.”). Therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion to intervene in this matter, 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, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.