GUNN v. Lorise David, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks a writ directing the district court to “set aside this case due to lack of personal jurisdiction over petitioner's Christian proper name,” for violation of his due process right to challenge personal jurisdiction, and “for violation of petitioner's religious beliefs and instructions that are protected by the Nevada Constitution of 1864 Article 1 Declaration of Rights Section 4.”

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner raised the same claims in his appeal in Gunn v. Eighth Judicial District Court, Docket No. 79226 (Order of Affirmance, Ct. App., April 8, 2020), and the claims were denied on the merits. As a result, the law-of-the-case doctrine applies, Dictor v. Creative Mgmt. Servs., LLC, 126 Nev. 41, 45, 223 P.3d 332, 334 (2010), precluding the relief petitioner seeks here. Accordingly we,

ORDER the petition DENIED.