IN RE: J.J.M.R., J.M.J.R. AND J.M.J.R., (FAMILY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an original writ proceeding seeking mandamus relief from a placement order in a protective custody action. The court set out the governing standards: 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). The court further noted that the decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies 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 these standards to the petition and supporting documents, the court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted and denied the petition. The order does not engage in any further doctrinal analysis of the underlying placement decision.

In plain language

This case involves a dispute over where certain minor children should be placed in a protective custody action - a court proceeding in which the state oversees the care and placement of children. A man named Jacoby Robinson asked the Court of Appeals to step in by issuing a writ of mandamus, which is a court order directing a lower court or official to do something the law requires, or to correct a decision that was made in an arbitrary or capricious way. The court explained that this kind of extraordinary relief is not automatic. A writ of mandamus can be used to force someone to perform a duty the law requires, or to control a lower court's "arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." The court also emphasized that whether to even consider such a petition is left entirely to its own discretion, and that the person bringing the petition carries the burden of showing the relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the supporting documents, the court concluded that Robinson had not shown that this extraordinary relief was warranted. As a result, the court denied the petition. The order does not explain the underlying facts of the placement dispute or give detailed reasoning beyond this conclusion.