MISIEWICZ v. The State of Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners, Real Party in Interest. (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges the denial of parole.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (explaining that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy, and that the issuance of such relief is purely discretionary).

Here, 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”). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.