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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying petitioner's emergency petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner had an adequate legal remedy—he could have appealed from the district court order denying his petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition. See NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. Further, even assuming that an appeal was not a speedy remedy in this case, we conclude that the district court did not arbitrarily or capriciously exercise its discretion in denying the petition filed below.¹ See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that a writ of prohibition is a remedy to restrain a judge from exercising a judicial function in excess of its jurisdiction and that issuance of a writ of prohibition or mandamus is purely discretionary); Round Hill Gen. Imp. 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). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

FOOTNOTES

1.   We deny the motion for an extension of time to file an amicus brief. In light of our order, we direct the Las Vegas Justice Court to disregard the order to send the original cd.

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