Opinion
No. 84740-COA
06-02-2022
Darren HEYMAN, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK; and the Honorable David M. Jones, District Judge, Respondents, and The State of Nevada Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education on behalf of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas; Neal Smatresk; Donald Snyder; Stowe Shoemaker; Rhonda Montgomery ; Curtis Love ; Sarah Tanford; Phillip Burns; Kristin Malek; Lisa Cain ; Debra Pieruschka; and Elda Sidhu, Real Parties in Interest.
Darren Heyman Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas
Darren Heyman
Attorney General/Carson City
Attorney General/Las Vegas
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion for a stay, which sought to hold the district court proceedings on remand from federal district court in abeyance pending appeal of the remand order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioner argues that writ relief is warranted because the district court failed to consider interlocutory orders on appeal in the Ninth Circuit when considering the likelihood of success on the merits, and based on considerations of judicial economy.
Despite entitling his filing as "Petition for Writ of Mandamus or Prohibition," petitioner seeks only mandamus relief therein.
"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires ... or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008) ; see NRS 34.160. A writ is an extraordinary remedy, and whether a petition for extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within this court's discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).
Having considered the petition and documents submitted in support thereof, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court failed to perform an act the law requires or arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. Accordingly, we
In light of this order, petitioner's emergency motion for a stay filed on May 20, 2022, is denied as moot.