AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The petitioner, a self-represented litigant, sought a writ of mandamus against the respondent, the City of Las Vegas. The petitioner also filed a motion for default judgment, claiming the respondent failed to timely answer his petition. Additionally, the petitioner raised claims regarding the mayor's alleged expropriation of his monies.

Procedural History

• District Court of San Miguel County, January 22, 2016: Denied petitioner's motion for default judgment and amended motion for default judgment, finding the respondent filed a timely response to the petition.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner: Argued that the district court failed to grant his motion for default judgment due to respondent's failure to timely answer the petition. He also raised claims regarding the mayor's expropriation of his monies.
• Respondent: Filed a timely response to the petition, which led to the denial of the petitioner's motion for default judgment.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the petitioner's motion for default judgment.
• Whether the petitioner's claims regarding the mayor's alleged expropriation of monies were properly addressed.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision to dismiss the petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus.

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, consisting of Judges James J. Wechsler, Michael D. Bustamante, and Timothy L. Garcia, found that the petitioner did not meet his burden to demonstrate error in the district court's denial of his motion for default judgment (para 3). The court noted that the district court had indeed ruled on the petitioner's motion, finding that the respondent had filed a timely response. The petitioner failed to challenge the district court's findings or provide relevant authority to support his position (para 3). Regarding the petitioner's claims about the mayor's expropriation of monies, the court found these arguments to be undeveloped and unintelligible, and therefore declined to address them (para 4). The court concluded that the petitioner did not clearly demonstrate that the district court erred, affirming the district court's decision (para 5).