HEWITT v. Bradley Scott Hewitt, Real Party in Interest. (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI, MANDAMUS, OR PROHIBITION

This original petition for a writ of certiorari, mandamus, or prohibition challenges a district court order to show cause and an order setting a show cause hearing and an evidentiary hearing on a motion to modify custody.

A writ of certiorari is granted when a lower court has exceeded its jurisdiction. NRS 34.020(2). A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160; Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This court may issue a writ of prohibition to arrest the proceedings of a district court exercising its judicial functions when such proceedings are in excess of the district court's jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has discretion as to whether to entertain a petition for extraordinary relief and will not do so when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.020(2), NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 123 Nev. 468, 474-75, 168 P.3d 731, 736-37 (2007); Zamarripa v. First Judicial Dist. Court, 103 Nev. 638, 640, 747 P.2d 1386, 1387 (1987). Petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

Having considered the petition, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary intervention is warranted. See id. Accordingly, we deny the petition. See NRAP 21(b)(1); D.R. Horton, 123 Nev. at 475, 168 P.3d at 737; Zamarripa, 103 Nev. at 640, 747 P.2d at 1387.

It is so ORDERED.