Opinion
No. 78777-COA
06-19-2019
LAWRENCE RONALD VALENTINE, Petitioner, v. LAS VEGAS JUSTICE COURT, LAS VEGAS TOWNSHIP; AND JUDGE CONRAD HAFEN, Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF QUO WARRANTO
In this original petition for a writ of quo warranto, Lawrence Ronald Valentine asserts former Judge Conrad Hafen lacked jurisdiction to hear his criminal case because he did not secure and maintain a bond before entering into office. NRS Chapter 35 does "not authorize[ ] petitions by private citizens with only a general interest in seeing this state's laws upheld." Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 679, 219 P.3d 895, 898 (2009). Rather, "only persons 'claiming to be entitled to a public office,' NRS 35.050, or otherwise through the attorney general and 'on the leave of the court,' NRS 35.040, may commence a quo warranto action against the alleged unlawful officeholder or usurper." Id. Valentine is not claiming he is entitled to a judgeship, and he has not obtained participation by the attorney general and leave of court to oust an individual from office. Therefore, he lacks standing to institute this action under NRS Chapter 35.
To the extent Valentine seeks mandamus relief and attempts to challenge the validity of his conviction, we conclude this court's intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted because Valentine has plain, speedy, and adequate remedies available to him for challenging a judgment of conviction. See NRS 34.170. Accordingly, we
We have considered all documents filed in this matter and conclude no relief based on those documents is warranted. --------
/s/_________, C.J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Lawrence Ronald Valentine
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk