Prabha Saxena, Petitioner, v. Terri Saxena, Real Party in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This emergency petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to compel the district court to hold the underlying proceedings in abeyance for 120 days.  ¹

Petitioner argues that, by not resolving her many motions for a continuance, the district court is forcing her to litigate despite her serious health issues, her need to obtain urgent medical attention, and the recent death of her husband. While we are sympathetic to petitioner's current difficulties, it appears that the probate commissioner considered her motions for a continuance on August 21, 2026, and is recommending that they be denied. The probate commissioner's denial recommendation is subject to objection and request for review by the district court. EDCR 4.06; EDCR 4.07. Given this status, it is not appropriate for this court to intervene at this time. See D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007) (explaining that writ relief rests within this court's sole discretion); Dornbach v. Tenth Jud. Dist. Ct., 130 Nev. 305, 312, 324 P.3d 369, 373-74 (2014) (recognizing that “allowing district courts to manage the cases before them” “promotes the efficient prosecution of cases”). Accordingly, and without prejudice to petitioner's ability to seek further writ review if deemed necessary after a district court decision is made on the motions for a continuance, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.

Lee, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner has moved for a waiver of the filing fee for this original proceeding, asserting indigence and inability to pay it and attaching a July 16, 2026, district court order granting her in forma pauperis status. Good cause thus having been demonstrated, the motion is granted. NRAP 21(g). No filing fee is due in this matter.