REED v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

In this original pro se petition for a pretrial writ of prohibition, David Levoyd Reed seeks a writ directing the district court to cease all further proceedings in district court case no. C-18-329762-1.

“This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has discretion as to whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief and will not do so when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 475, 168 P.3d 731, 737 (2007). Petitioner bears 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).

Here, Reed raises several claims—including challenging the State's failure to transport him for various hearings and several actions of the district court, including the district court's denial of Reed's motion to reopen an evidentiary hearing regarding his prior pretrial counsel's alleged delay in filing a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We conclude that heed has an adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeal from any judgment of conviction. NRS 177.015(3); NRS 177.045. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   We further deny Reed's motion for leave to exceed 15 page and 7,000 word limit as moot.