THOMAS SIELER v. SONIA SIELER (2026)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION

This petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a temporary custody order in a family law matter. 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; NRS 34.330; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing such relief is warranted). Having considered the briefs and their supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted at this time. See 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). Petitioner has an adequate legal remedy in the form of an appeal from the final judgment. See Walker v. Second, Jud. Dist. Ct., 136 Nev. 678, 681, 476 P.3d 1194, 1197 (2020) (explaining that the availability of a later appeal generally precludes writ relief). And, problematically, petitioner has failed to provide this court with all the documents necessary to review the matters set forth in the petition, such as transcripts of the proceedings. See NRAP 21(a)(4). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.

Bell, J.

Stiglich, J.

Cadish, J.