Reed v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of State, 444 P.3d 456 (2019)
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.