From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Adams v. Filkins

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jan 29, 2024
No. 87707 (Nev. Jan. 29, 2024)

Opinion

87707

01-29-2024

BRANDON ADAMS, Petitioner, v. ANN FILKINS; ALICIA MOON; LARRY ROYSTER; JULIE CLEMENT; AND JACOB SHAPIRO, Respondents.


UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Cadish, C.J.

This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus.

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. See NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). Whether a petition for extraordinary writ relief will be entertained rests within this court's sound discretion. D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having reviewed the petition and the limited documents provided in support by petitioner, we conclude, without reaching the merits of any claims, that petitioner has failed to meet his burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Stiglich, Herndon, J.


Summaries of

Adams v. Filkins

Supreme Court of Nevada
Jan 29, 2024
No. 87707 (Nev. Jan. 29, 2024)
Case details for

Adams v. Filkins

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON ADAMS, Petitioner, v. ANN FILKINS; ALICIA MOON; LARRY ROYSTER…

Court:Supreme Court of Nevada

Date published: Jan 29, 2024

Citations

No. 87707 (Nev. Jan. 29, 2024)