Matthew Dillon, Petitioner, v. The State of Nevada Department of Motor Vehicles et al., Respondents. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus in an employment matter.

Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that generally is unavailable when an adequate legal remedy exists. Walker v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 681, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020). A writ of mandamus is therefore not the proper vehicle to challenge an administrative decision before administrative remedies have been exhausted. Mesagate Homeowners’ Ass'n v. City of Fernley, 124 Nev. 1092, 1101, 194 P.3d 1248, 1254 (2008).

NRS 284.390 requires a hearing officer to adjudicate an employee's suspension appeal and authorizes judicial review of the hearing officer's decision. NRS 284.390(1), (9). Because the Legislature has provided an avenue for judicial review, petitioner has an adequate legal remedy that generally precludes writ relief. See Howell v. Ricci, 124 Nev. 1222, 1229, 197 P.3d 1044, 1049 (2008); see also Walker, 136 Nev. at 682-83, 476 P.3d at 1198 (discussing this court's policy that mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal even where mandamus would be easier or more expeditious). Petitioner remains free to present procedural and due process objections to the hearing officer and, if necessary, seek judicial review of any adverse decision. Cf. Hagblom v. Pers. Advisory Comm'n of Nev., 97 Nev. 35, 37, 623 P.2d 977, 978 (1981) (holding that a party waives a procedural objection in an NRS 284.390 administrative proceeding by failing to raise the objection at the hearing). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Herndon, C.J.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.