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

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a November 5, 2019, district court order remanding petitioner to Lakes Crossing for a determination of petitioner's ability to receive treatment to attain competence.

Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. See NRS 34.160; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (explaining that petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (“[T]he issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court.”). Accordingly, we deny the instant writ petition without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for stay is denied as moot. We note, however, that petitioner failed to demonstrate that filing the motion for stay in the district court in the first instance was impracticable, as petitioner had three weeks between the date of the district court's order and when he filed the emergency motion for stay in this court. See NRAP 8(a)(2)(A) (i).