Opinion
No. 84774
05-31-2022
JERRY D., Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable Robert Teuton, District Judge, Respondents, and State of Nevada Department of Family Services; A.D.; and F.D., Real Parties in Interest.
The Grigsby Law Group Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.
The Grigsby Law Group
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Legal Aid Center of Southern Nevada, Inc.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original, emergency petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a preliminary district court order concluding that petitioner's two minor children should remain in protective custody pending further proceedings under NRS Chapter 432B.
Having reviewed the petition and supporting documentation, we are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). In particular, while petitioner challenges the district court's preliminary protective custody findings and the representations upon which they are based, an adjudicatory hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, at which the parties may have an opportunity to present additional evidence and argument. Accordingly, we conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted at this time, and we
ORDER the petition DENIED.