ANDERSON-ALEXANDER VS. DIST. CT. (MOTEN, III) (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an original proceeding seeking a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a district court custody order. The court set out the governing framework for extraordinary writ relief. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, per NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, citing Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction, per NRS 34.320. The court emphasized that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within its sole discretion, and that the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted, citing Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Applying this framework, the court concluded that the petitioner "has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law in the form of an appeal from the custody order that precludes writ relief," citing NRS 34.170, NRS 34.330, and D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). The court further noted that the petitioner had timely appealed from the custody order, and that the appeal was pending in Docket No. 90813-COA. On that basis, the court denied the petition.

In plain language

This case involves a parent, Jasmine Anderson-Alexander, who was unhappy with a child custody order entered by a family court judge in Clark County. Instead of (or in addition to) filing a regular appeal, she asked the Court of Appeals to step in immediately by issuing what is called an "extraordinary writ" - a special court order used only in limited circumstances. She asked for two possible types of writ. A writ of mandamus is a court order that forces a lower court or official to do something the law requires, or that reins in a decision made in an arbitrary or capricious way. A writ of prohibition is a court order that stops a lower court from acting when it has no legal authority (jurisdiction) to act. Both are considered emergency, out-of-the-ordinary remedies. The Court of Appeals explained that deciding whether to take up this kind of emergency writ petition is entirely within its own discretion, and that the person asking for the writ carries the burden of showing that such relief is justified. The court also noted a key rule: these extraordinary writs are generally not available when a person already has an ordinary, adequate way to challenge the ruling - most commonly, a regular appeal. Here, the court found that Anderson-Alexander did have such an ordinary remedy: she could appeal the custody order. In fact, the court pointed out that she had already filed a timely appeal from that same custody order, and that appeal was pending in a separate case (Docket No. 90813-COA). Because a normal appeal was available and already underway, the court concluded that an emergency writ was not appropriate and denied the petition.