ALICIA ALEXANDRA NICHOLS v. THE STATE OF NEVADA (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges an August 31, 2026, bench warrant issued for petitioner's arrest. On September 17, 2026, this court granted petitioner's request for additional time to file proof of service on the respondent court and judge, to obtain counsel, and to file an appendix in support of the petition. Petitioner thereafter moved for an extension of time, indicating that service was accomplished but also seeking an order requiring the district court to transmit the record or provide her with copies at no cost, appointing conflict counsel to secure necessary ADA accommodations, staying the bench warrant, and authorizing alternative service for future filings. She additionally filed a notice of compliance and interest status update, and an emergency notice of quashed warrant/motion for judicial recusal/compliance with ADA accommodations.

Having reviewed the filings before us, we conclude that petitioner's challenge to the bench warrant is moot, as it appears that the August 31 warrant has been quashed and this court can provide no effective relief. See Personhood Nev. v. Bristol, 126 Nev. 599, 602, 245 P.3d 572, 574 (2010). Moreover, to the extent petitioner additionally seeks orders from this court disqualifying the district court judge, appointing conflict-free counsel, and ordering largely unspecified ADA accommodations, the petition is denied.¹ Those issues are not properly before this court in the first instance. Petitioner must proceed with such requests through counsel in the district court, and to the extent she asserts a conflict with current counsel, that issue also is for the district court to decide. Accordingly, we decline to exercise our discretion to further consider this writ petition, NRAP 21(b); Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991), and we thus

ORDER the petition DENIED.²

Pickering, J

Parraguirre, J.

Bell, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Petitioner admits that she has been allowed to appear remotely for at least some of the district court hearings, and she asserts that the court has permitted her to obtain competency evaluations remotely as well.

2.   In light of this order, petitioner's motion for an extension of time and to have the record transmitted is denied as moot.