Welch v. Daniels ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
    KENTRELL DUMURIE WELCH,                                 No. 85202
    Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE SEVENTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
    telZ
    COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
    IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF WHITE
    PINE,                                                    SEP
    Respondent,                                                       /1
    !    PFCMN
    _
    and                                                 CLERK Of:    REML. 1...31.111.12
    CFIARLES DANIELS, NDOC
    DIRECTOR; AND WILLIAM RUE BART,
    Real Parties in Interest.
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This is a pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or
    prohibition challenging the conditions of confinement of petitioner and
    similarly situated inmates.
    Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our
    extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted.                 See NRS
    34.170; 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 
    120 Nev. 222
    , 224, 228,
    
    88 P.3d 840
    , 841, 844 (2004) (explaining that writ relief is proper only when
    there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and petitioners bear
    the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted).
    Petitioner has not demonstrated that he requested and was
    denied relief in the district court in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4)
    (providing that the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all
    documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition").
    Even assuming the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a
    petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, any application for such
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    2_1—zcA368
    relief should first be directed to and resolved by the district court in the first
    instance so that the factual and legal issues can be fully developed,
    providing an adequate appellate record to review. See Round Hill Gen. Imp.
    Dist. v. Newman, 
    97 Nev. 601
    , 604, 
    637 P.2d 534
    , 536 (1981) (recognizing
    that an appellate court is not the appropriate forum to resolve questions of
    fact and determining that when there are factual issues presented,
    appellate courts will not exercise their discretion to entertain a petition for
    extraordinary relief even if "important public interests are involved"); State
    v. Cty. of Douglas, 
    90 Nev. 272
    , 276-77, 
    524 P.2d 1271
    , 1274 (1974) (noting
    that "this court prefers that such an application [for writ relief] be
    addressed to the discretion of the appropriate district court" in the first
    instance), abrogated on other grounds by Attorney Gen. v. Gypsum Res., 
    129 Nev. 23
    , 33-34, 
    294 P.3d 404
    , 410-11 (2013); see also Walker v. Second
    Judicial Dist. Court, 
    136 Nev. 678
    , 684, 
    476 P.3d 1194
    , 1199 (2020) (noting
    that this court typically will not entertain petitions for extraordinary relief
    that implicate factual disputes). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.
    •de   lk
    V    tA   daiSA   r.     "46. 7   771 2
    •   •
    1/44
    Parraguirre
    , J.                                                     , J.
    Hardesty                                                   Stiglich
    cc:   Kentrell Durnurie Welch
    Attorney General/Carson City
    White Pine County Clerk
    SUPREME COURT
    OF
    NEVADA
    1(.11 19-17A
    2