MCKINLEY v. Clark County District Attorney; Henderson Police Department; and the State of Nevada Department of Corrections, Real Parties in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION AND AMENDED PETITION

This original pro se petition and amended petition for a writ of mandamus seek an order directing the real parties in interest to (1) comply with certain subpoenas and discovery requests, (2) allow and assist petitioner to electronically file documents and review discovery, (3) provide petitioner audio/video equipment to participate in district court hearings, and (4) permit petitioner to keep boxes of legal documents in his prison cell.

Petitioner has not provided this court with all of the 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”). Thus, we are not persuaded that petitioner has met his burden to show that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (observing that “the issuance of a writ of mandamus or prohibition is purely discretionary with this court”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition and amended petition DENIED.