IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
EVAN SCOTT GRANT, No. 82627 Petitioner, VS.
MARY K. BAKER, COMMISSIONER, NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS; SUSAN JACKSON, COMMISSIONER, NEVADA BOARD OF HLE PAROLE COMMISSIONERS; TONY MAY 1 4 2021 CORDA, COMMISSIONER, NEVADA ELLZABEM A. BROWN BOARD OF PAROLE CLERK gF SUPREME COURT COMMISSIONERS; MICHAEL BY S-Y19--LA DEPUTY CLERXO KEELER, COMMISSIONER, NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS; DARLA FOLEY, COMMISSIONER, NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE COMMISSIONERS, Res I ondents. EVAN SCOTT GRANT, No. 82628 Petitioner, VS.
CHARLES DANIELS, DIRECTOR, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; HAROLD WICKHAM, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS, NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; PERRY RUSSELL, WARDEN, NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; LISA WALSH, FORMER ASSOCIATE WARDEN OF PROGRAMS AND GRIEVANCE COORDINATOR, NORTHERN NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; NATHAN HUGHES, CORRECTIONAL CASEWORKER SPECIALIST III SUPREME COLON OF NEVADA
101 1941A atielp al I- 13913j tsKeiar ratzatiatte r .4.4)
NORTHER NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; TEJAY HARVEY, CORRECTIONAL CASEWORKER SPECIALIST, NORTHER NEVADA CORRECTIONAL CENTER; RONALD RAY HUDNALL, PSYCHOLOGIST III, WARM SPRINGS CORRECTIONAL CENTER; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents.
ORDER DENYING PETITIONS These original petitions for a writ of a mandamus challenge the denial of parole based on a failure to follow NRS 213.1214 and to consider all of the mitigating circumstances, the risk-level assessment tool used by the Department of Corrections, and the Department's failure to provide procedures to challenge the risk-level assessment and update administrative regulations. We have reviewed the documents submitted in these matters, and without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised therein, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction. Petitioner should file a petition for a writ of mandamus challenging the actions of the respondents in the district court in the first instance. See State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Arrnstrong), 127 Nev. 927, 931, 267 P.3d 777, 779-80 (2011) (recognizing that the decision to entertain an extraordinary writ petition lies within our discretion); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (explaining that an appellate court is not suited to resolve factual disputes and therefore will not exercise its discretion to entertain a mandamus petition when there are
'We elect to consolidate these petitions for disposition. See NRAP 3(b)(2) (permitting court to consolidate matters upon its own motion). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 101 1,47A .463yr.
factual questions). He can then appeal from any adverse decision. See NRS 2.090(2) (providing that an order granting or refusing to grant mandamus is appealable). Accordingly, we ORDER the petitions DENIED.
—C24°s3k Parraguirre j'
A14,C.1.-0 , J. Stiglich
, J. Silver
cc: Evan Scott Grant Attorney General/Carson City
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (01 I947A <eilZgn
• ? -7