Longstreet, Sr. Vs. Metro. Police Dep'T Det. Ctr. Of Clark Cty.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

ANTHONY O. LONGSTREET, SR., No. 81947 Petitioner, vs. METROPOLITAN POLICE FILED DEPARTMENT DETENTION CENTER NOV 2 0 2020 OF CLARK COUNTY, A. Res ondent. CLEELIZ; SUPREML' ir BY DEPUTY CLE--ki

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges respondent's alleged restrictions on petitioner's ability to send mail. Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 224, 88 P.3d 840, 841 (2004) (noting that a writ of mandamus is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and explaining that petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted). Petitioner has not provided this court with a copy of a district court order denying him writ relief in the first instance. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents "essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition"). Even assuming that the relief sought here could be properly obtained through a petition for writ relief, any application for such relief should be made to the district court in the first instance so that factual and legal issues are fully developed, giving this court an adequate 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 an appropriate forum in which to resolve disputed questions of fact" and SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(01 1947A aggiDep eo

determining that when there are factual issues presented, this court will not exercise its discretion to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief even though "important public interests are involved"); State v. Cty. of Douglas, 90 Nev. 272, 270-77, 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 coure 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). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition NIED.1 C.J. Pickering

, J. , J.

Hardesty Silver

cc: Anthony O. Longstreet, Sr. Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner's November 17, 2020, pro se motion requesting issuance of summons is denied.

Further, to the extent petitioner has counsel below, he must proceed by and through his counsel.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A agelo