ORTIZ CERON v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner appears to contend that because he falls within the scope of the Treaty of Hildalgo the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over him. Petitioner appears to challenge extradition.

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner’s failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition also constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief NRAP 21(a)(1).