KHALIFAH VS. DIST. CT. (HOLLINGS) (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

This is an original proceeding for extraordinary writ relief arising from a child custody matter. The court set out the governing standards. A writ of mandamus is available to compel 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 acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction, NRS 34.320. The court emphasized the discretionary nature of writ relief, stating 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 these standards to the petition and supporting documents, the court concluded that the petitioner had not demonstrated that extraordinary relief was warranted at this time, and denied the petition. In a footnote, the court denied the petitioner's emergency stay motion as moot in light of the order denying the petition. The court further observed that although the stay motion sought a stay of a district court order finding petitioner in contempt, no such order was included with the stay motion or otherwise filed in the docket.

In plain language

A man named Hakeem Khalifah, handling his own case without an attorney, asked the Nevada Court of Appeals to step in and override something the trial court did in a child custody dispute. He sought what are called "extraordinary writs" - special court orders that a higher court can issue to direct or stop a lower court. Specifically, he asked for a writ of mandamus (a court order forcing a lower court to do something the law requires it to do, or to correct an arbitrary or capricious decision) or a writ of prohibition (a court order stopping a lower court from acting beyond its legal power). What Khalifah was challenging was an "order to show cause" - a court order directing a person to appear and explain why they should not be penalized for something - that had been entered in his child custody matter. The Court of Appeals explained that whether to take up this kind of writ petition at all is entirely within its own discretion, and that the person asking for the writ bears the burden of showing the relief is justified. After reviewing the petition and the documents Khalifah submitted, the court concluded that he had not shown that extraordinary relief was warranted at this time. The court therefore denied the petition. The court also addressed Khalifah's emergency request to pause, or "stay," a district court order. He said that order had found him in contempt. The court denied this request as moot (no longer a live issue) given its denial of the main petition. The court additionally noted that the contempt order Khalifah said he was challenging was not actually included with his stay motion or otherwise filed in the case record.