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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original pro se petition for a writ of quo warranto or prohibition, petitioner challenges the jurisdiction of the district court judge who signed his judgment of conviction and alleges that he was wrongfully convicted of charges that had previously been dismissed with prejudice.

Petitioner’s claims are outside the scope of those for which quo warranto may be granted. See Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 678-79, 219 P.3d 895, 898 (2009). We therefore decline to entertain the petition for a writ of quo warranto.

A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain the district court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has complete discretion in deciding whether to entertain a petition seeking such relief. Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008). Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted). Accordingly, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.