RYNE MICHAEL SEETO v. FRANCINE AMY DRUMMOND FRANCINE SEETO AND THE CLARK COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY FAMILY SUPPORT DIVISION (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is an emergency original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition challenging multiple orders from various lower court proceedings. A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, NRS 34.160, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion, Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008). A writ of prohibition arrests the proceedings of a tribunal that is acting in excess of, or without, jurisdiction. NRS 34.320. The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief is within our sole discretion, and the petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that such relief is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). Having considered the petition and the other documents before this court, we conclude that petitioner's documents do not support his requests for relief and, further, he has not carried his burden of demonstrating that appeals would not be adequate remedies. Accordingly, extraordinary relief is not warranted, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.

FOOTNOTES

1.   In light of this order, we deny petitioner's motion for emergency relief as moot. We also do not comment on whether any appeals would be timely.