Go to main contentsGo to search barGo to main menu
Thursday, May 15, 2025 at 11:44 PM
Ad
Ad

Nevada Courts Continue to Debate Dondero’s Legitimacy as Sheriff of Esmeralda County

Nevada Courts Continue to Debate Dondero’s Legitimacy as Sheriff of Esmeralda County
Dondero far left, with his attorney Augustus Claus. Photo by Leanna Lehman.

Over the last year, The Fallon Post has published a series of articles  about Nick Dondero, who began his term of office as Esmeralda County’s elected sheriff on January 2, 2023. Specific issues appear to disqualify Dondero as sheriff or from being a law enforcement officer in Nevada, and the Nevada Attorney General’s Office has contested the matter. 

On January 9, 2024, Dondero appeared in the Fifth Judicial District Court before Judge Kimberly Wanker on civil charges levied by the Nevada Attorney General (AG). The AG asserts that Dondero is not and cannot be qualified to serve as a peace officer in Nevada because he is prohibited by statute. Specifically, a 2007 sealed misdemeanor domestic violence conviction renders him ineligible to serve as a peace officer and prohibits certification by POST, the Nevada Commission on Peace Officers Standards and Training. 

Judge Wanker denied the AG's request for Summary Judgment, which would have resolved the matter before trial. Summary Judgment would have granted a Writ of Quo Warranto and resulted in the removal of Dondero from office based on the premise that he unlawfully holds his position as Esmeralda County Sheriff. 

Following Wanker’s ruling in January, the AG filed a Writ of Mandamus with the Nevada Supreme Court. The 244-page document alleges that Judge Wanker’s denial of Summary Judgment was “a manifest abuse of discretion on an open question of Nevada law.” Furthermore, the AG declares that Dondero’s criminal record has only been sealed, not expunged. Thus, his conviction renders him ineligible to possess a firearm and disqualifies him from serving as a peace officer, as the two are required for law enforcement officers in Nevada. 

On April 8, the AG filed a Request for Submission of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay with the District Court, which would pause all proceedings until the Supreme Court rules on the Writ of Mandamus. In response, Intervenor for Esmeralda County, Nye County District Attorney Brian T. Kunzi, filed in opposition, asserting that Wanker’s denial of Summary Judgment in the case is unappealable and any attempt at appeal would be defeated. According to Cornell Law School, an Intervenor is a third party of an existing civil lawsuit who was not named as an original party but has a stake in the outcome. Kunzi represents Esmeralda County's interest, as their elected district attorney, Robert Glennen, III, has a conflict and cannot be involved in the case. 

In addition to Kunzi’s opposition as Intervenor of Esmeralda County, T. Augustus Claus Esq., defense counsel for Dondero, also filed an opposition to the request for the Motion to Stay proceedings, claiming Dondero would suffer irreparable and serious injury if the stay is granted. 

Dondero is scheduled to appear Tuesday, May 7, in Goldfield in District Court, where Wanker is expected to rule on the Motion to Stay. 

 


Share
Rate

Comment

Comments

May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 1
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 2
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 3
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 4
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 5
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 6
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 7
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 8
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 9
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 10
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 11
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 12
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 13
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 14
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 15
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 16
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 17
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 18
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 19
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 20
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 1Page no. 1
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 2Page no. 2
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 3Page no. 3
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 4Page no. 4
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 5Page no. 5
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 6Page no. 6
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 7Page no. 7
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 8Page no. 8
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 9Page no. 9
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 10Page no. 10
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 11Page no. 11
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 12Page no. 12
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 13Page no. 13
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 14Page no. 14
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 15Page no. 15
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 16Page no. 16
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 17Page no. 17
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 18Page no. 18
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 19Page no. 19
May 16, 2025 - Behind the Buzz - page 20Page no. 20
SUPPORT OUR WORK