Opinion
83170
07-30-2021
ANTHONY ODELL LONGSTREET, SR., Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
ORDER DENYING PETITION
This pro se original petition and amended petition seek a writ of mandamus compelling the district court to permit petitioner to represent himself and accept his filings. Having considered the petition and amended 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 petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Although petitioner has supplied a docket sheet indicating that the district court may have denied his request to represent himself, he has not provided this court with a copy of a written order signed by the district court. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing i the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"); see also Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch, Dist, 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that a written order is essential to this court's review). Accordingly, we
Petitioner has submitted two filings entitled, "Petition For Writ of Mandamus." We construe the second filing as an amended petition as it is not identical to the first filing, but generally seeks the same relief.
ORDER the petition and amended petition DENIED.
Given our disposition, we take no action on petitioner's motions to proceed in forma pauperis. However, we note that the filing fee was waived upon the docketing of this writ petition.
Hardesty, C.J., Parraguirre, J. Cadish, J.