CRAIGE v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges various pretrial rulings by the district court in a criminal proceeding.

This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus, and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is solely within this court's discretion. See Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioners bear the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Id. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a Final judgment generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted because petitioner has not demonstrated that a direct appeal from a judgment of conviction would not be a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. In addition, petitioner failed to provide copies of the district court orders he is challenging and the other materials that may be essential to understanding the matters set forth in the petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.