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

ORDER DENYING FIRST AMENDMENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an emergency, pro se, original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district court child custody order, as well as NRS Chapter 125C in general, as violative of his First Amendment rights.

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). While we recognize that petitioner is alleging significant issues regarding impingement of his fundamental rights, those rights are not limitless, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 233-34 (1972) (“To be sure, the power of the parent, even when linked to a free exercise claim, may be subject to limitation ․”); Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944) (“And neither rights of religion nor rights of parenthood are beyond limitation.”); Marriage of Geske v. Marcolina, 642 N.W.2d 62, 70 (Minn. Ct. App. 2002) (“[S]everal other states have noted that the best interests of children can be a compelling state interest justifying a prior restraint of a parent's right of free speech.”), and those issues can be raised in petitioner's appeal from the child custody order. As we have repeatedly emphasized, an appeal is generally an adequate and speedy legal remedy that precludes writ relief. See NRS 34.170; Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. No exception to the general rule applies here. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.