ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND/OR MANDAMUS
This emergency, original pro se petition for a writ of certiorari and/or mandamus challenges a district court order affirming a justice court summary eviction on appeal. Petitioner also seeks an emergency stay of eviction.
A writ of certiorari is available to correct judicial action made in excess of jurisdiction when “there is no appeal, nor, in the judgment of the court, any plain, speedy and adequate remedy.” NRS 34.020(2); Dangberg Holdings v. Douglas County, 115 Nev. 129, 137-38, 978 P.2d 311, 316 (1999). As we have previously explained, “if it is determined that the act complained of was within the jurisdiction of the tribunal, our inquiry stops even if the decision or order was incorrect.” Id. (quoting Goicoechea v. District Court, 96 Nev. 287, 289, 607 P.2d 1140, 1141 (1980)). A writ of mandamus, which may compel a legally required act or correct an arbitrary and capricious exercise of discretion, NRS 34.160, is also available only when no adequate and speedy legal remedy exists, NRS 34.170. Whether a petition for writ relief will be considered is within this courts discretion. Dangberg Holdings, 115 Nev. at 138, 978 P.2d at 316; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991); see also Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that petitioners bear the burden to demonstrate that writ relief is warranted).
Because a party aggrieved by a justice court decision has a plain, speedy, and adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal to the district court, see Nev. Const. art. 6, § 6; Waugh v. Casazza, 85 Nev. 520, 521, 458 P.2d 359, 360 (1969) (recognizing that the district court has final appellate jurisdiction in cases arising in the justice court), this court generally declines to consider writ petitions requesting review of a district courts appellate decision, see State of Nevada, v. District Court, 116 Nev. 127, 134, 994 P.2d 692, 696 (2000). In that regard, to preserve the finality of the district courts appellate decision, this court typically will not entertain such a petition unless the district court has improperly refused to exercise its jurisdiction or the matter involves an unsettled issue of statewide importance. Id. at 134, 994 P.2d at 697.
Here, having considered the petition and supporting documents, including petitioners argument concerning the justice courts jurisdiction over the summary eviction proceedings, we conclude that petitioner has not shown that deviating from the general rule against reviewing a district courts appellate decision is appropriate. Dangberg Holdings, 115 Nev. at 138, 978 P.2d at 316; State of Nevada, 116 Nev. at 134, 994 P.2d at 697. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
Herndon, J.
Lee, J.
Bell, J.
FOOTNOTES
1
. In light of this order, petitioners motion for stay is denied as moot.