SULLIVAN v. RUSSELL (2023)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition asking this court to direct the district court to comply with an order of the court of appeals and appoint counsel to assist petitioner with postconviction proceedings. See Sullivan v. Russell, No. 85109-COA, 2023 WL 2565019 (Nev. Ct. App. Mar. 17, 2023) (Order of Reversal and Remand).

According to the Second Judicial District Court website, an order appointing counsel to represent petitioner was filed in the district court on May 23, 2023. Therefore, this aspect of the petition is now moot.

Petitioner also asks this court to order the Nevada Department of Corrections “to cease and desist from actively interfering with my legal work and to open its law libraries to inmate use for more than 2 hours per week.” Petitioner bears the burden of showing that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1.991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by way of providing mandamus and/or prohibition relief is warranted. Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.