Opinion
84929
07-29-2022
TRAVIS WILFORD BOWLES, Petitioner, v. THE SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WASHOE; AND THE HONORABLE CONNIE J. STEINHEIMER, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents.
Travis Wilford Bowles, Attorney General/Carson City
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Travis Wilford Bowles, Attorney General/Carson City
ORDER DENYING PETITION
Parraguirre, C.J.
This is an original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or in the alternative to show cause pursuant to NRS 34.160 et seq. seeking to compel the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing and consider the merits of petitioner's habeas petition.
This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus and the issuance of such extraordinary relief is within this court's sole discretion. See Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4; D.R. Morton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004).
Although petitioner provided a brief affidavit wherein he references the dismissal of a habeas petition, he has not provided this court with any record or documentation in support of his claims and necessary for this court's consideration of the petition. See NEAP 21(a)(4) (providing that petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understanding] the matters set forth in the petition"). We conclude that petitioner has failed to demonstrate our intervention by extraordinary writ is warranted. Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in | this matter. See NRAP 21(b). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Hardesty, Stiglich Judges
Hon. Connie J. Steinheimer, District Judge