Opinion
No. 59123.
10-06-2011
Anthony D. Bailey Lance A. Maningo
Anthony D. Bailey
Lance A. Maningo
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI MANDAMUS, OR PROHIBITION
This original proper person petition for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition challenges the district court's alleged dismissal of petitioner's district court action as to real party in interest.
The clerk of this court shall modify the caption for this matter to conform to the caption on this order.
Writ relief is generally available when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. NRS 34.020(2) ; NRS 34.170 ; NRS 34.330. A writ of certiorari is available to confine an inferior tribunal, board, or officer exercising judicial functions to the limits of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.020(2). A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160. And writ of prohibition may issue to confine the district court to the proper exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction when the court has acted in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. The issuance of a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition is purely within this court's discretion. Dangberg Holdings v. Douglas Co., 115 Nev. 129, 138, 978 P.2d 311, 316 (1999) ; Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991). Having reviewed the petition, we decline to exercise our discretion to extraordinarily intervene in the district court proceedings. Id.; NRAP 21(b)(1) and (c). Accordingly, we
In light of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's motion to proceed in proper person.
The Honorable Robert E. Rose and the Honorable Miriam Shearing, Senior Justices, participated in the decision of this matter under general orders of assignment.
--------