BARROW v. Stephen J. Avillo; The State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services; Carson City Sheriff's Office; The State of Nevada Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Child and Family Services; and P. B. B., a Minor Real Parties in Interest. (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This is a pro se original petition for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, mandamus seeking to compel the district court to rule on a NRCP 60(b) motion.

The decision to entertain a petition for extraordinary writ relief lies within the discretion of this court. Smith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991) (recognizing that writ relief is an extraordinary remedy and that this court has sole discretion in determining whether to entertain a writ petition). A writ of mandamus is available only to compel the performance of a legally required act or to cure an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981). 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, 107 Nev. at 677, 818 P.2d at 851.

Petitioner bears the burden to show that extraordinary relief is warranted, and such relief is proper only when there is no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law. NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004). An appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal generally precludes writ relief. Id. at 225, 88 P.3d at 841.

Having considered the petition and supporting documents, we are not persuaded that our intervention is warranted. Petitioner has not demonstrated that he lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy by way of an appeal from a subsequent final judgment. Pan, 120 Nev. at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Accordingly, writ relief is improper, and we

ORDER the petition DENIED.¹

FOOTNOTES

1.   Given our disposition of this matter, petitioner's “emergency” motion for a stay filed on December 11, 2025 is denied as moot.