FASTHORSE v. STATE (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to enforce its order directing the State to file a response.

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”). In fact, petitioner failed to indicate the nature of the relief he seeks below. Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b).

We reiterate that “[p]etitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.” Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

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