Full Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA ROBERT MICHAEL SCHNEIDER, No. 93361-COA Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK AND THE HONORABLE TINA TALIM, DISTRICT JUDGE, Respondents, and THE STATE OF NEVADA, Real Party in Interest. ORDER DENYING PETITION This original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss an indictment. 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 supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not carried his burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED. Bulla, C.J. Gibbons, J. Westbrook, J. cc: Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney The Pariente Law Firm, P.C. Hon. Tina Talim, District Judge The Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada, in and for the County of Clark 2