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

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for extraordinary writ relief seeks a writ of mandamus and a writ of habeas corpus directing the district court to vacate its Second Corrected Judgment of Conviction issued May 28, 2018.

A writ of mandamus is available only when no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy exists in the ordinary course of law, NRS 34.170, and this court has repeatedly held that an appeal is an adequate remedy at law that precludes writ relief. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004). It is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Petitioner indicates that the district court previously denied his postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus but fails to indicate why an appeal from such denial does not constitute an adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170. Further, a challenge to a judgment of conviction must be raised in a postconviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed in the district court in the first instance. See NRS 34.724; NRS 34.738; NRAP 22.

Problematically, petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him relief in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents “essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition”).

Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised herein, we determine that our intervention is not warranted, see NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioner[ ] carr[ies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.