Opinion
85311
11-17-2022
WARREN HAVENS, Petitioner, v. ARNOLD LEONG; AND CHERYL CHOY, Respondents.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This pro se original petition for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, and prohibition challenges a minute order denying petitioner's motions to conduct a deposition, for relief under NRCP 60(b), and for relief under Eighth Judicial District Court Rule 2.20(e) in a tort action. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). To begin, although petitioner has provided a minute order with his petition, he has not supplied copies of any written district court orders memorializing the rulings. See Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a minute order is ineffective for any purpose and that a written order signed and filed by the district court is essential to this court's review); see also NRAP 21(a)(4) (stating that it is the petitioner's obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition). In addition, petitioner has failed to present any cogent argument or relevant authority as required to carry his burden to demonstrate that an appeal from the district court's final judgment does not afford him a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 229, 88 P.3d at 844. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre, C.J., Hardesty, J., Stiglich, J.
Hon. Elham Roohani, District Judge