IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
COREY B. JOHNSON, No. 83081 Appellant, vs. THE STATE OF NEVADA, PLED Respondent. JAN / 4 2022 • A. BROWN PREPAE COURT AWA.41 CLERK
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE This is a pro se appeal from a district court order denying a petition for a writ of mandamus and a petition for judicial review. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Susan Johnson, Judge. In his petitions, appellant challenged the revocation of his parole. However, neither a petition for a writ of mandamus nor a petition for judicial review are the appropriate vehicles in which to challenge the decision to revoke parole because a petition for a writ of habeas corpus is an available legal remedy. See NRS 34.170 (providing that mandamus relief is not available when there is a plain, speedy and adequate legal remedy); NRS 34.020(2) (providing that the writ of review is not available where there is a plain, speedy and adequate remedy); see also NRS 34.360 ("Every person unlawfully committed, detained, confined or restrained of his or her liberty, under any pretense whatever, may prosecute a writ of habeas corpus to inquire into the cause of such imprisonment or restraint"); Hornback v. Warden, 97 Nev. 98, 100, 625 P.2d 83, 84 (1981) (parole
'This appeal has been submitted for decision on the record without briefing or oral argument. NRAP 340)(3), (g); see also NRAP 31(d)(1); Luckett v. Warden, 91 Nev. 681, 682, 541 P.2d 910, 911 (1975). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(01 1947A 40... z- OttiTY
revocation challenge raised in petition for writ of habeas corpus). Therefore, the district court did not err in denying these petitions. Accordingly, we ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
C.J. Parraguirre
J. Hardesty
J.
cc: Hon. Susan Johnson, District Judge Corey B. Johnson Attorney General/Carson City Attorney General/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT OF NEVAOA 2 (DI 1947A 44Y6).