SHAHROKHI v. Kizzy Burrow, Real Party in interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a November 8, 2021, district court order that, in part, requires petitioner and real party in interest to serve any documents filed in the court by mail, as well as electronically, and to provide proof of service, before the document will be considered by the court. Petitioner asserts that the requirement is a prior restraint on his court access and free speech rights, and he has filed an emergency motion seeking a stay of that portion of the district court's order.

Having considered the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). The district court's order does not limit petitioner's access to the courts, it merely requires, due to asserted issues with the opposing party receiving service, both parties to also serve filings by mail and to provide proof of service, the latter of which is already mandated. NRCP 5(b). Moreover, petitioner did not provide this court with a copy of real party in interest's countermotion requesting proper service. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring appendix to include any document that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for a stay is denied as moot.