ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This is an emergency, pro se, original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeking to preclude the City Council from considering and/or approving a rezoning request.
1
Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Generally, challenges to final administrative zoning decisions must be made in the district court in the first instance. See Kay v. Nunez, 122 Nev. 1100, 1105, 146 P.3d 801, 805 (2006); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 604, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). Further, non-attorneys may not represent another persons interests before this court, Guerin v. Guerin, 116 Nev. 210, 214, 993 P.2d 1256, 1258 (2000), and writ petitions must name and be served on all real parties in interest, NRAP 21(a)(2). Finally, petitioners NRAP 27(e) certificate fails to meet the requirements of that rule, TRP Fund VI, LLC v. PHH Mortg. Corp., 138 Nev., Adv. Op. 21, ––– P.3d –––– (2022), and his failure to provide proof of service constitutes an additional basis on which to deny relief. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Although petitioners affidavit was not notarized, it appears that he otherwise meets the NRAP 24 requirements, and we therefore grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis and waive the filing fee. NRAP 21(e).