WALKER VS. DIST. CT. JUDGE (KRIEGHOFF) (CHILD CUSTODY)

Statutes cited

Key holdings

Practitioner summary

The court reiterated the discretionary nature of its original writ jurisdiction under Nev. Const. art. 6, § 4, citing D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007). The petitioner bears the burden of showing that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is unavailable where the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. See Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). The court reaffirmed that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief, and that writ relief is not available to cure an untimely notice of appeal. Id. at 224-25, 88 P.3d at 841. Applying that framework, the court concluded that the order denying the NRS 125C.050 visitation petition was a final appealable order under NRAP 3A(b)(1). Because Walker had an adequate remedy by way of appeal and had not demonstrated otherwise, writ relief was unwarranted and the petition was denied.

In plain language

Matthew Walker asked the Nevada Supreme Court to step in and overturn a decision by a family court judge who denied his request to establish visitation with a child. Instead of filing a regular appeal, he asked the Supreme Court for an "extraordinary writ" - either a writ of mandamus (a court order requiring a lower court to do something it must do) or a writ of prohibition (a court order stopping a lower court from doing something it cannot do). The Supreme Court declined to get involved. It explained that these extraordinary writs are reserved for situations where a person has no other reasonable way to fix the problem in court. Here, the order Walker was challenging was a "final appealable order," meaning he could have appealed it through the normal appeal process. Because a regular appeal was available to him, the Supreme Court concluded that writ relief was not the right tool. The court also noted that a writ cannot be used as a substitute when someone has missed the deadline to file a normal appeal. The court did not rule on whether the family court judge was right or wrong about visitation. It only decided that this particular procedural vehicle - a writ petition - was not the proper way to bring the issue before the Supreme Court.