Opinion
No. 78798
05-28-2019
JUANA GUZMAN BUSTAMANTE, Petitioner, v. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE DENISE L. GENTILE, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and JEFFREY E. HERNANDEZ, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a February 11, 2019, district court "minute order" denying a motion to designate child witnesses.
Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that our ordinary intervention is not warranted at this time. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (explaining that it is within this court's sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered); NRAP 21(b)(1). Petitioner has not provided a written, file-stamped district court order, which precludes our review. See Div. of Child & Family Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004); Rust v. Clark Cty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (providing that a minute order is not effective for any purpose). Further, petitioner provides no explanation as to why she waited until May 21, 2019, to challenge a February 2019 ruling. See, e.g., Buckholt v. Dist. Court, 94 Nev. 631, 633, 584 P.2d 672, 673 (1978) (recognizing that the laches doctinre applies to petitions for a writ of mandamus). Accordingly, we deny this writ petition without prejudice to petitioner's ability to file a new petition challenging a written, file-stamped order, if deemed appropriate.
It is so ORDERED.
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Pickering cc: Hon. Denise L. Gentile, District Judge
Robert W. Lueck, Ltd.
The Grigsby Law Group
Eighth District Court Clerk