JASON v. CLARK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES RHODECIA ELTON MINOR AND MINOR (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus raises pretrial due process concerns regarding a termination of parental rights trial scheduled to commence this morning. Petitioner has also filed an emergency motion for stay.

Whether to issue extraordinary writ relief is solely within this court's discretion, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that such relief is warranted, Pan. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having reviewed the petition and appendix, we decline to intervene. Trial apparently is ongoing, and petitioner has not demonstrated a clear legal right to the relief requested under the circumstances warranting extraordinary intervention at this time. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 681-82, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (providing that, to obtain the extraordinary remedy of mandamus, a petitioner must establish a clear legal right to the course of action requested). Further, to the extent that petitioner seeks to develop such a right, petitioner may raise these arguments in the context of any appeal from an adverse final judgment, and he has not shown that any such appeal would be inadequate to remedy the alleged due process violations. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (“[T]he right to appeal is generally an adequate legal remedy that precludes writ relief.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Hardesty, J.

Stiglich, J.

Herndon, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's emergency motion for stay.