IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
NEILL SAMUELL, No. 69470
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FILED
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, MAR 1 8 2016
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, TRACE K. UNDEMAN
CLERpFxSEPRENIE COURT
Respondent. BY a•Y
DEPUTY CLERK
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus
challenges district court decisions denying motions to extend the prison
copy work limit. Having reviewed the petition, we conclude that petitioner
has not met his burden of demonstrating that writ relief is warranted. Pan
v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228-29, 88 P.3d 840, 844
(2004) (explaining that it is petitioner's burden to demonstrate that writ
relief is warranted).
Although petitioner states that he is unable to provide this
court with copies of his district court motions, the minutes in District
Court Case No. C-12-279515-1 reflect that the district court denied the
motions after finding that petitioner's original request to copy 10,000
documents and second request to copy 6,520 documents were not justified.
Petitioner has not shown how this decision was an arbitrary or capricious
exercise of discretion and he has not otherwise identified any authority
supporting an entitlement to relief. Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second
Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS
34.160. Although petitioner states that he needs additional copy funds to
copy his habeas petition and exhibits attached thereto for service and
filing, an inmate's right to meaningful access to the courts does not include
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0/ 1947A e
unlimited or free access to copy work, especially if a suitable alternative
exists. Johnson v. Moore, 948 F.2d 517, 521 (9th Cir. 1991) ("A denial of
free photocopying does not amount to a denial of access to the courts.");
Harrell v. Keohane, 621 F.2d 1059, 1061 (10th Cir. 1980) ("A prisoner's
right of access to the court does not include the right of free unlimited
access to a photocopying machine, particularly when as here, there are
suitable alternatives."). Petitioner has the option of using carbon paper to
hand-copy his habeas petition, see AR 722.01(7)(E), and he is not required
to attach records or other evidence supporting the petition if he recites a
cause for his failure to attach these materials. NRS 34.370. Thus, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Har
Saitta
J.
Pickering
cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Court
Neill Samuell
Attorney General/Carson City
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
c0) 1947A vkee;co