Case ID: p3d_444/html/0456-03.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

David Levoyd REED, Petitioner, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT of the State of Nevada, IN AND FOR the COUNTY OF CLARK, Respondent, and The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest.
    No. 78892
    Supreme Court of Nevada.
    FILED JULY 11, 2019
    David Levoyd Reed
    Attorney General/Carson City
    Clark County District Attorney
    ORDER DENYING PETITION
    This pro se petition for a writ of mandamus challenges Judge Michael Villani's order denying petitioner's motion to recuse Judge William Kephart for bias or prejudice. We conclude petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court arbitrarily or capriciously exercised its discretion in denying his motion. See NRS 34.160 ; Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court , 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and that the decision to entertain such a writ rests within this court's discretion); Round Hill Gen. Imp. Dist. v. Newman , 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion); see also State v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court (Armstrong ), 127 Nev. 927, 931-32, 267 P.3d 777, 780 (2011) ("An arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion is one 'founded on prejudice or preference rather than on reason' ... or 'contrary to the evidence or established rules of law.' " (internal citations omitted)). Accordingly, we
    ORDER the petition DENIED.