GOODLETT v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2019)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, alternatively, prohibition challenges a district court order denying a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus.¹ We are not satisfied that this court's intervention by way of an extraordinary writ is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court acted arbitrarily or capriciously in denying the petition. See NRS 34.160; Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) (defining an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that a petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that the decision to entertain such a writ rests within this court's discretion). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   We note that prohibition is not available to challenge the district court's denial of a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Goicoechea v. Fourth Judicial Dist. Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980) (“A writ of prohibition ․ will not issue if the court sought to be restrained had jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter under consideration.”).

2.   The Honorable Michael Douglas, Senior Justice, participated in the decision of this matter under a general order of assignment.