Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep'T v. Dist. Ct. (State) ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                               IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE                         No. 84459
    DEPARTMENT,
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF                                 FILED
    CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
    APR 0 1 2022
    JAMES M. BIXLER, SENIOR DISTRICT
    JUDGE,                                                 ELV_A.e.LITH A. BROWN
    BCYL.E_RL(.32.1:k.EME COURT
    Respondents,                                              DEPUTY CLEW
    --
    and
    THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND
    MATEO FACTO,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR
    PROHIBITION
    This original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus and/or
    prohibition under NRAP 27(e) challenges a district court order remanding
    real party in interest Mateo Facio to the custody of Clark County Detention
    Center and directing that he be housed there through his trial date.
    Having considered the petition and its supporting
    documentation, we are not persuaded that extraordinary writ relief is
    warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial
    Dist. Court, 
    133 Nev. 816
    , 821, 
    407 P.3d 702
    , 707 (2017) (stating that the
    petitioner bears the burden of showing that writ relief is warranted).
    Among other reasons, petitioner has not demonstrated that emergency
    relief is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. See NRAP 27(e). Nor has
    petitioner demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    (CH 19,17A    cciSrp
    discretion. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 
    136 Nev. 678
    , 680,
    
    476 P.3d 1194
    , 1196 (2020) (where a district court is given discretion on an
    issue, "the petitioner's burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a
    particular course of action by that court is substantial; we can issue
    traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused
    that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciouslY); AA Primo Builders,
    LLC v. Washington, 
    126 Nev. 578
    , 589, 
    245 P.3d 1190
    , 1197 (2010)
    (reviewing an order denying a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of
    discretion); see also Halverson v. Hardcastle, 
    123 Nev. 245
    , 260-61, 
    163 P.3d 428
    , 439-40 (2007) (discussing courts inherent authority to carry out
    judicial functions). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    Silver
    6
    J.
    Cadish
    J.
    cc:   Hon. Jacqueline M. Bluth, District Judge
    Chief Judge, The Eighth Judicial District Court
    Hon. James M. Bixler, Senior Judge
    Marquis Aurbach Coffing
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    Special Public Defender
    Eighth District Court Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA                                                      2
    (0) 1947A    adiret)
    •Tit.:'
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84459

Filed Date: 4/1/2022

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 4/4/2022