Opinion
No. 83509
10-14-2021
Dennis Keith KIEREN, Jr., Petitioner, v. The STATE of Nevada ; Charles Daniels, Director of the State of Nevada Department of Corrections; and Randall Gilmer, Division of Public Safety of the Office of Attorney General in His Capacity as General Counsel of the Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Dennis Keith Kieren, Jr. Attorney General/Carson City
Dennis Keith Kieren, Jr.
Attorney General/Carson City
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This original pro se petition for a writ of prohibition and mandamus challenges respondent's alleged restrictions on petitioner's ability to have documents notarized. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170 ; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition").
Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman , 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that "an appellate court is not an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" and determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "important public interests are involved"); State v. Cty. of Douglas , 90 Nev. 272, 276-77, 524 P.2d 1271, 1274 (1974) (noting that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court" in the first instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 129 Nev. 23, 33-34, 294 P.3d 404, 410-11 (2013). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.