A writ of certiorari is an extraordinary remedy that will be
granted when an inferior tribunal has exceeded its jurisdiction and there
is no appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy available. NRS
34.020(2); Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747
P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). This court has the discretion to determine
whether to entertain a petition for a writ of certiorari. Zamarripa, 103
Nev. at 640, 747 P.2d at 1387.
Based on our review of these matters, we conclude that our
intervention by way of extraordinary relief is not warranted. Petitioner's
single-page petitions merely provide vague requests that this court
overturn the alleged eviction order without providing copies of the
challenged order, any other supporting documents, or any arguments as to
why the order was in error. Without the order, appendix, or argument,
this court has "no way of properly evaluating the petition" because this
court does not have information essential to this court's understanding of
the matters set forth in the writ petition. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist.
Court, 120 Nev. 222, 229, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); see also NRAP 21(a)(4);
NRAP 21(c).
While petitioner requests, both in her initial petition and in
Docket No. 65802, that she be allowed additional time to file an appendix
because she is disabled, she did not provide any affidavit, declaration, or
other information concerning her disability and has not taken any other
action in these matters since the filing of this petition. And as noted
above, even if petitioner had filed an appendix, she failed to provide any
cogent argument regarding why this court could consider her writ petition
and did not cite to any authority supporting her position. See Edwards v.
Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A er,
(2006) (declining to consider an issue when the party failed "to cogently
argue, and present relevant authority, in support of his appellate
concerns"). We therefore decline to grant petitioner further time to file an
appendix in these matters.
Thus, because petitioner has failed to provide necessary cogent
arguments or supporting documents with regard to these matters, we
conclude that these petitions should be denied,' id.; Pan, 120 Nev. at 229,
88 P.3d at 844; albeit, without prejudice to petitioner's ability to file a new
petition accompanied by the necessary supporting documents and
providing sufficient arguments to support her position.
It is so ORDERED. 2
Pickering
bsa J.
Parraguirre Saitta
'We note that, in addition to the deficiencies noted above, petitioner
has not provided certificates of service indicating that she properly served
these petitions on respondents or real party in interest. NRAP 21(a)(1);
NRAP 25(d) (setting forth requirements for proof of service). Petitioner
must properly serve each document filed with this court and file a
completed certificate of service with the document when it is filed with
this court, NRAP 25(b)-(d), and the failure to do so could constitute an
independent basis for denying these petitions.
2 Inlight of this order, we deny as moot petitioner's request for a stay
of the underlying matter.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I 14 -A
cc: Hon. James M. Bixler, District Judge
Michelle Bradford
Canyon Pointe
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A etr9