IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
STEVEN J. BANK, EX REL. EFREN No. 84574 GONZALEZ-RIVERA AND OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners, vs. FILED MAYOR CAROLYN GOODMAN; AND MAY 1 9 2022 CITY OF LAS VEGAS CITY COUNCIL, ELIZABETh A. BROWN Respondents, CLERKgtrRaiE mom. BY and DEPUTY CLE I.3.-1.
DESTINY HOMES, LLC, Real Party in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This emergency, pro se, original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks to preclude the Las Vegas City Council from considering and/or approving a rezoning request.' Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Srnith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). As we
'Although petitioner's affidavit was not notarized, it appears that he otherwise meets the NRAP 24 requirements, and we therefore grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and waive the filing fee. NRAP 21(e).
We decline to treat this petition as an emergency, however, as petitioner's NRAP 27(e) certificate fails to explain why relief is needed by the requested relief date. See TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 SUPREME COURT Nev., Adv. Op. 21, 506 P.3d 1056 (2022). OF NEVADA
(0) I947A 441/P4
— 2 —
noted with respect to petitioner's prior petition raising the same issues, see Docket No. 84497, challenges to administrative zoning decisions may be made in the district court. See Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1105, 146 P.3d 801, 805 (2006); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Thus, once the City Council has rendered a final decision, petitioner may challenge that decision, including the issues he raises here, in the district court, and the availability of that legal remedy precludes writ relief. See Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841 (explaining that writ relief is available only when there is no plain, adequate, and speedy legal remedy and noting that an appeal is generally considered a legal remedy precluding writ relief). Further, non-attorneys may not represent another person's interests before this court, Guerin v. Guerin, 116 Nev. 210, 214, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (2000), and the use of "ex rel." to show that petitioner is bringing suit on behalf of Efren Gonzalez- Rivera and others is improper here. See Ex rel., Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (A suit ex rel. is typically brought by the government upon the application of a private party (called a relator) who is interested in the matter."). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
J. J. Hardesty Stiglich
— 3 —
cc: Steven J. Bank Las Vegas City Attorney Kaempfer Crowell/Las Vegas
SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA
(0) i947A cl4pc,