GRIGALANZ VS. DIST. CT. (COPAS) (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an original proceeding in which a pro se petitioner sought a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the district court's denial of a motion to disqualify the judge presiding over his custody motion. 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, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, 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 that is acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction, 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 that framework, the court stated that, having considered the petition and the supporting documents, it concluded the petitioner had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted, and it denied the petition. In light of that disposition, the court also denied the petitioner's emergency motion for stay and his "Motion to Lodge Video Exhibit." The order does not articulate further substantive analysis of the disqualification issue.

In plain language

A man named Phillip Scott Grigalanz was involved in a custody case in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County. He asked that the judge handling his custody motion be disqualified - that is, removed from his case. The district court denied that request. Rather than waiting to appeal at the end of the case, Grigalanz, representing himself without a lawyer, went directly to the Court of Appeals and asked for an "extraordinary writ." An extraordinary writ is a special, immediate court order. He sought two kinds: a writ of mandamus - a court order forcing a lower court or official to perform a duty the law requires, or to correct an arbitrary or capricious use of discretion - and a writ of prohibition - a court order that stops a lower court from acting beyond its legal authority or jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals explained that deciding whether to take up this kind of petition at all is entirely within its own discretion, and that the person asking for the writ carries the burden of showing that this unusual relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the documents Grigalanz submitted, the court concluded he had not made that showing. The court therefore denied the petition. Because it denied the petition, the court also denied Grigalanz's emergency request to pause the proceedings (a stay) and his request to submit a video exhibit. The order does not explain the underlying facts of the custody dispute, the specific reasons the disqualification was sought, or why the district court denied disqualification. It states only that the petitioner did not demonstrate that extraordinary relief was warranted.