SHAHROKHI VS. DIST. CT. (BURROW)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court applied settled writ-relief standards. The party seeking writ relief bears the burden of demonstrating its propriety, Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004), and the court has sole discretion to entertain such petitions, Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Writ relief is unavailable where the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy, see NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330, and "[a] writ of mandamus is not a substitute for an appeal," Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 819, 407 P.3d 702, 706 (2017). The court found two independent bars. First, an appeal from the final judgment in the custody case was an adequate remedy at law. Second, Shahrokhi had in fact taken that appeal, and the court had affirmed the same orders in Shahrokhi v. Burrow, Docket Nos. 81978, 82245 & 83726 (May 12, 2022). The court quoted its prior order rejecting the constitutional challenge to NRS 125C.0035, the due process claims, the jurisdictional/criminal-proceeding arguments, and the notice-and-opportunity-to-respond argument. Re-examination was barred by law of the case. Recontrust Co., N.A. v. Zhang, 130 Nev. 1, 8, 317 P.3d 814, 818 (2014); see also Bd. of Gallery of History v. Datecs Corp., 116 Nev. 286, 289, 994 P.2d 1149, 1150 (2000); Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161 n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011). The court invoked its inherent authority to strike pages 16, 20, 22, and 24 of the petition and a December 8, 2022 emergency motion to vacate a wire-tap order, citing prior cautionary orders to Shahrokhi about decorum and Phillips v. Carey, 638 F.2d 207, 208 (10th Cir. 1981). The court granted the motion to file the appendix under seal pursuant to SRCR 7. The court denied Shahrokhi's motion to disqualify Justices Parraguirre and Herndon under NCJC 2.11(A) and Rippo v. Baker, 580 U.S. 285, 137 S. Ct. 905, 907 (2017). Shahrokhi premised the motion on his federal lawsuit concerning the child custody decisions and his attempt to name the justices through an amended complaint. The court cited In re Taylor, 417 F.3d 649, 652 (7th Cir. 2005); Terry v. State, 602 N.E.2d 535, 541 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992); and Farm Credit Bank of St. Paul v. Brakke, 512 N.W.2d 718, 721 (N.D. 1994), in addressing factors relevant to disqualification based on a pending lawsuit.

In plain language

Ali Shahrokhi asked the Nevada Supreme Court to issue an extraordinary court order - called a writ of mandamus or prohibition - that would throw out two child custody rulings entered against him in 2020 and would declare a Nevada child custody statute unconstitutional. The statute at issue, NRS 125C.0035(5), creates a presumption that giving custody to a parent found by clear and convincing evidence to have committed domestic violence is not in the child's best interest. The Supreme Court declined to intervene. The court explained that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy available only when a person has no other adequate way to challenge a ruling. Here, Shahrokhi already had an ordinary path: a regular appeal from the final judgment in his custody case. In fact, he had already used that path - he appealed the same orders, and the Supreme Court affirmed them in a May 12, 2022 order in Docket Nos. 81978, 82245, and 83726. The court also pointed to the "law of the case" doctrine, which prevents a party from re-litigating issues that have already been decided. The court noted that in the prior appeal it had already rejected Shahrokhi's constitutional challenge to NRS 125C.0035, his due process claims, his arguments that the proceedings were criminal or beyond the court's jurisdiction, and his claim that he lacked adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the domestic violence allegations. The court took two additional housekeeping actions. It granted Shahrokhi's request to file his appendix under seal because it contained materials sealed below. It also struck several pages of the petition and an emergency motion for containing what the court described as inappropriate and insulting personal attacks on the district judge, noting it had previously cautioned Shahrokhi about decorum. Finally, the court denied Shahrokhi's motion to disqualify Justices Parraguirre and Herndon, which was based on his having filed (or attempting to amend) a federal lawsuit naming them.