ALVAREZ v. The State of Nevada, Real Party in Interest. (2021)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to reduce bail. We conclude that extraordinary relief is not warranted because petitioner has not met his substantial burden of demonstrating a clear legal right to the relief requested. See NRS 34.160; Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev., Adv. Op. 80, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (recognizing petitioner's substantial burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action where the court is entrusted with discretion on the issue); Poulos v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 98 Nev. 453, 455, 652 P.2d 1177, 1178 (1982) (recognizing that it is within this court's discretion whether to issue a writ of mandamus); Round Hill Gen. Improvement Dist. v. Newman, 97 Nev. 601, 603-04, 637 P.2d 534, 536 (1981) (recognizing that a writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an action which the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion). Here, the district court conducted a hearing on the motion and entered written findings of fact and conclusions. See Valdez-Jimenez v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 155, 166, 460 P.3d 976, 987 (2020) (setting forth procedural due process requirements). In denying the motion, the district court considered the relevant statutory factors and nonmonetary alternatives to bail. See id. at 164-65, 460 P.3d at 986. Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.