Opinion
No. 63735
01-21-2015
MICHAEL ANGELO DRAKE, Petitioner, v. THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CARSON CITY; AND THE HONORABLE JAMES T. RUSSELL, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Real Party in Interest.
An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of certiorari challenging a district court order affirming the dismissal of petitioner's justice court complaint.
A writ of certiorari is available to correct a lower tribunal's judicial action if the tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and "there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy." NRS 34.020(2); Dangberg Holdings Nev., LLC v. Douglas Cnty. & its Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 115 Nev. 129, 137-38, 978 P.2d 311, 316 (1999) (internal quotations omitted). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Petitioner initiated a justice court action following real party in interest's alleged unlawful confiscation of certain of petitioner's personal items. In this case, petitioner seeks our review of the district court's affirmance of the justice court's decision to dismiss that action. Petitioner, however, has failed to provide an adequate appendix in support of his petition. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (requiring a petitioner seeking writ relief to provide an appendix that includes copies "of any . . . parts of the record" or other documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"); see also NRAP 21(c) (providing that a petition seeking an extraordinary writ other than mandamus or prohibition generally shall be sought in the same manner as a petition for mandamus or prohibition relief). Among other things, petitioner has not provided a copy of his justice court complaint, copies of the motion practice resulting in the dismissal of that complaint, or copies of the briefing on appeal to the district court. Under these circumstances, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our intervention by way of extraordinary writ relief is warranted, and we therefore deny the petition. NRAP 21(b)(1); Pan, 120 Nev. at 228, 88 P.3d at 844.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Silver
cc: Hon. James T. Russell, District Judge
Michael Angelo Drake
Attorney General/Carson City
Carson City Clerk