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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order setting a deadline for an NRS 174.098 motion that is more than 10 days before the scheduled trial date. Without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised in the documents submitted in this matter, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction at this time. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that issuance of a writ of mandamus is within this court's discretion). Petitioner's argument is premature because he has not filed an NRS 174.098 motion and the district court has not declined to consider any such motion based on the failure to comply with a deadline. Cf. Jones v. Nev. Comm'n on Jud. Discipline, 130 Nev. 99, 107-10, 318 P.3d 1078, 1083-85 (2014) (denying an original writ of mandamus challenging timing concerns and procedural violations as premature where a formal hearing had not taken place and an appeal could be taken). Additionally, arguments challenging the deadline have not been adequately presented to or considered by the district court in the first instance. See Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 822, 407 P.3d 702, 708 (2017) (“[I]n the context of extraordinary writ relief, consideration of legal arguments not properly presented to and resolved by the district court will almost never be appropriate.”). Accordingly, we deny the petition without prejudice.

It is so ORDERED.¹

I dissent. I would entertain the petition.

FOOTNOTES

1.   We lift the stay previously imposed by this court.