Opinion
No. 58309.
05-11-2011
In the Matter of the Parental Rights as to T.A.A., a minor. Lashanna C., Petitioner, v. The Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark; and the Honorable Cynthia Dianne Steel, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
Attorney General/Carson City
Clark County District Attorney/Juvenile Division
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the district court's order regarding placement of a minor child in an NRS Chapter 432B proceeding, or in the alternative, seeks a writ of prohibition precluding the district court from proceeding with a trial in District Court Case No. D–09–415168–R.
Because District Court Case No. D–09–415168–R is not currently before this court, we lack jurisdiction to consider the alternative writ or petitioner's motion for stay.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control a manifest abuse of discretion. See NRS 34.160 ; Mineral County v. State, Dep't of Conserv., 117 Nev. 235, 20 P.3d 800 (2001). It is within our discretion to determine if a writ will be considered. Smith v. District Court, 107 Nev. 674, 818 P.2d 849 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and its attached documents, we are not persuaded that this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is warranted. NRAP 21(b)(1) ; Smith. 107 Nev. 674, 818 P .2d 849. Additionally, petitioner has failed to demonstrate that our intervention is warranted, as she did not provide this court with the necessary documents to consider the district court's order. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 228–29, 88 P.3d at 844 (explaining that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted, which can be satisfied, in part, by providing the parts of the record that are essential to this court's understanding of the matters raised in the writ petition). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.