LANGFORD v. GARRETT (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

This original pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus purports to seek resolution of claims petitioner argues he failed to raise in appeals from district court orders denying postconviction petitions for writs of habeas corpus.

At the outset, we note that petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. 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”); 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.”).

Moreover, having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that writ relief is warranted because petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available to him by way of an appeal from the district court's denial of such relief in the first instance. See NRAP 22 (“An application for an original writ of habeas corpus should be made to the appropriate district court. If an application is made to the district court and denied, the proper remedy is by appeal from the district court's order denying the writ.”); see also Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law). Here, petitioner readily admits that he had an adequate remedy at law by way of direct appeals from two district court orders denying postconviction petitions for writs of habeas corpus. Petitioner admits error in failing to address all of the claims set forth in his petitions on appeal and asks this court to address them by way of extraordinary relief so that he may exhaust his state law claims. We decline to do so. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.