COX v. Gilcrease Well Corporation, a Nevada Non-Profit Cooperative Corporation, Real Party in Interest. (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of prohibition or mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioners' request seeking a judge's recusal or disqualification based on bias or lack of impartiality.

Petitioners' allegations of bias and impartiality stem from Judge Gonzalez's rulings and actions in predecessor litigation, which do not support her disqualification in the underlying matter. See Rivero v. Rivero, 125 Nev. 410, 439, 216 P.3d 213, 233 (2009) (recognizing that bias must result from something other than what the judge learned from her participation in the case); In re Petition to Recall Dunleavy, 104 Nev. 784, 789, 769 P.2d 1271, 1275 (1988) (holding that “rulings and actions of a judge during the course of official judicial proceedings do not establish legally cognizable grounds for disqualification”); see also Millen v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 122 Nev. 1245, 1254-55, 148 P.3d 694, 701 (2006) (observing that disqualification “requires an extreme showing of bias that would permit manipulation of the court” (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). Accordingly, we conclude that our extraordinary intervention is not warranted, as the district court did not arbitrarily exercise its discretion in denying petitioners' request for disqualification. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see NCJC 2.11(A)(1) (requiring disqualification where a judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned). We therefore

ORDER the petition DENIED.