JOHNSON v. STATE (2022)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

In his petitions, appellant challenged the revocation of his parole. However, neither a petition for a writ of mandamus nor a petition for judicial review are the appropriate vehicles in which to challenge the decision to revoke parole because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is an available legal remedy. See NRS 34.170 (providing that mandamus relief is not available when there is a plain, speedy and adequate legal remedy); NRS 34.020(2) (providing that the writ of review is not available where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy); see also NRS 34.360 (“Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint.”); Hornback v. Warden, 97 Nev. 98, 100, 625 P.2d 83, 84 (1981) (parole revocation challenge raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying these petitions. Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.