GRANT v. BAKER (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS

These original petitions for a writ of a mandamus challenge the denial of parole based on a failure to follow NRS 213.1214 and to consider all of the mitigating circumstances, the risk-level assessment tool used by the Department of Corrections, and the Department's failure to provide procedures to challenge the risk-level assessment and update administrative regulations.¹ We have reviewed the documents submitted in these matters, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. Petitioner should file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the actions of the respondents in the district court in the first instance. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779-80 (2011) (recognizing that the decision to entertain an extraordinary writ petition lies within our discretion); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (explaining that an appellate court is not suited to resolve factual disputes and therefore will not exercise its discretion to entertain a mandamus petition when there are factual questions). He can then appeal from any adverse decision. See NRS 2.090(2) (providing that an order granting or refusing to grant mandamus is appealable). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petitions DENIED.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We elect to consolidate these petitions for disposition. See NRAP 3(b)(2) (permitting court to consolidate matters upon its own motion).