From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hensley v. Laxalt

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 18, 2015
No. 69109 (Nev. Dec. 18, 2015)

Opinion

No. 69109

12-18-2015

MICHAEL E. HENSLEY, Petitioner, v. ADAM P. LAXALT, ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondent.

cc: Michael E. Hensley Attorney General/Carson City


An unpublished order shall not be regarded as precedent and shall not be cited as legal authority. SCR 123.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se petition for a writ of mandamus. Petitioner seeks an order directing that he be considered for parole pursuant to the legislative changes set forth in A.B. 267. See A.B. 267, 78th Leg. (Nev. 2015). We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. This issue should be presented to the district court in the first instance where a factual record may be made. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

/s/_________, J.

Saitta /s/_________, J.
Gibbons /s/_________, J.
Pickering cc: Michael E. Hensley

Attorney General/Carson City


Summaries of

Hensley v. Laxalt

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
Dec 18, 2015
No. 69109 (Nev. Dec. 18, 2015)
Case details for

Hensley v. Laxalt

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL E. HENSLEY, Petitioner, v. ADAM P. LAXALT, ATTORNEY GENERAL…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

Date published: Dec 18, 2015

Citations

No. 69109 (Nev. Dec. 18, 2015)