MELENDEZ v. EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR COUNTY OF CLARK (2020)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition appears to seek a writ directing the district court to correct its record so that petitioner may file a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

A writ of mandamus “is available to compel performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an ‘office, trust or station’ or to control a manifest abuse of, or an arbitrary or capricious exercise of, discretion.” See Cheung v. Dist. Court, 121 Nev. 867, 868-69, 124 P.3d 550, 552 (2005) quoting NRS 34.160. The counterpart to a writ of mandate, a writ of prohibition, is available when a district court acts without or in excess of its jurisdiction. See State of Nev. v. Dist. Court (Anzalone), 118 Nev. 140, 146-47, 42 P.3d 233, 237 (2002). This court has original jurisdiction to grant writs of mandamus and prohibition, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Here, petitioner has not met that burden. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.