| Case Information: 39606 | |||
| Short Caption: | COX VS. DISTRICT COURT (WILLIAM B. RIRIE HOSPITAL) | Court: | Supreme Court |
| Related Case(s): | 34480 , 37069 | ||
| Lower Court Case(s): | White Pine Co. - Seventh Judicial District - CF9903002 | Classification: | Original Proceeding - Civil - Proper Person Writ Petition |
| Disqualifications: | Case Status: | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed | |
| Replacement: | Panel Assigned: | Panel | |
| To SP/Judge: | SP Status: | ||
| Oral Argument: | Oral Argument Location: | ||
| Submission Date: | How Submitted: | ||
| + Party Information |
| Docket Entries | ||||
| Date | Type | Description | Pending? | Document |
| 05/09/2002 | Filing Fee | Filing Fee due. 03/06/03 Order-fn3: no filing fee is due. | ||
| 05/09/2002 | Petition/Writ | Filed Proper Person Petition for Writ. Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E) | 02-08140 | |
| 06/11/2002 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order/Answer Writ Petition. Respondent shall have 30 days from the date of this order to file an answer, including authorities, against issuance of the requested writ with respect to the issue of a district court's duty to file all documents presented for filing that are in the proper form. The real parties in interest shall have 30 days from the date of this order within which to file an answer, including authorities and copies of any documents supporting their position, against issuance of the requested writ with respect to the issue of whether the district court's order denying petitioner's motion for entry of a default judgment was proper. | 02-10150 | |
| 06/28/2002 | Petition/Writ | Filed Answer to Petition for Writ. Answer of Real Parties in Interest Against Issuance of Writ of Mandamus. | 02-11191 | |
| 07/03/2002 | Petition/Writ | Filed Answer to Petition for Writ. District Court's Response to "Order Directing Answer" filed in the Nevada Supreme Court on June 11, 2002. | 02-11391 | |
| 03/06/2003 | Order/Dispositional | Filed Order Denying Petition. Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus. fn1[We direct the clerk of this court to amend the caption on this court's docket to reflect the caption on this order. The petition erroneously indicated that the underlying district court action took place in Eureka County. The documentation before us indicates that the action occurred in White Pine County. Inasmuch as Eureka County and White Pine County are both in the Seventh Judicial District, and the proper district judge was served and has filed an answer, it appears that no prejudice ha resulted from this error. We nevertheless direct the clerk of this court to serve a courtesy copy of this court's June 11 order upon the White Pine County Clerk so that the district court file will be complete.] fn2[We conclude that petitioner has demonstrated good cause for waiving the filing fee in this matter, see NRAP 21(e), and so no filing fee is due. We grant petitioner's request to appear in proper person for the limited purpose of filing the petition received on May 9, 2002, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis received on May 9, 2002, and we direct the clerk of this court to file these documents. We have reviewed the remaining documents submitted by petitioner, and conclude that any relief requested is not warranted at this time.] "ORDER the petition DENIED." NNP03-RR/WM/MG | 03-03744 | |
| 03/06/2003 | Motion | Filed Proper Person Motion. Motion for Leave to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (pursuant to NRAP 24(a)). | 02-08141 | |
| 03/06/2003 | Motion | Filed Proper Person Motion. Motion for Leave to File Papers in Proper Person. (NRAP 46(b)). | 02-08142 | |
| 05/06/2003 | Post-Judgment Order | Filed Order/Rehearing Denied. "Rehearing denied." NRAP 40(c). NNP03-RR/W/MG | 03-07681 | |
| 06/03/2003 | Remittitur | Issued Notice in Lieu of Remittitur. | 03-07867 | |
| 06/03/2003 | Case Status Update | Remittitur Issued/Case Closed. | ||
| 06/11/2003 | Order/Procedural | Filed Order Denying Motion. to Transmit Record. On March 6, 2003, we denied this proper person petition for a writ of mandamus, and on May 6, 2003, we denied rehearing. On May 14, 2003, petitioner submitted two documents. No rule or statute provides for a direct appeal to a United States District Court from an order of this court. This court is not an appropriate forum for filing a notice of appeal. Accordingly, no action will be taken on the "Notice of Appeal," and we deny petitioner's request to transmit the record. ." fn1[Although petitioner was not granted leave to file papers in proper person, see NRAP 46(b), we have considered the proper person documents received from him.] | 03-09701 | |