IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

TYLER DAVID POOL, 

Petitioner, 

vs. 

THE SIXTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

HUMBOLDT; AND THE HONORABLE 

MICHAEL MONTERO, DISTRICT 

JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

Real Party in Interest. 

No. 85571 

FILED

NOV 5 20li 

.TH EVR.01.q.11 

CL 'UP 'ME:: COURT 

13 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

This original petition for a writ of mandamus or, in the 

alternative, prohibition challenges the district court's jurisdiction to enter 

a scheduling order following the State's filing of a notice of appeal in both 

the justice court and the district court. 

A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of 

an act that the law requires .. . or to control an arbitrary or capricious 

exercise of discretion." Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 

124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160. 

A writ of prohibition "arrests the proceedings of any tribunal, 

corporation, board or person exercising judicial functions, when such 

proceedings are without or in excess of the jurisdiction of such tribunal, 

corporation, board or person." NRS 34.320. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

10) 1,47A ..14DP 55-9 Z3 
A writ is an extraordinary remedy, and whether a petition for 

extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within this court's 

discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679, 

818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). Petitioner bears the burden to show that 

extraordinary relief is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 

120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004). 

Having considered the petition and documents submitted in 

support thereof, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary intervention 

is warranted. Petitioner has not demonstrated that the district court failed 

to perform an act the law requires or arbitrarily or capriciously abused its 

discretion, Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558, nor has he 

demonstrated that the district court acted in excess of its jurisdiction, NRS 

34.320. 

The State appropriately filed a notice of appeal in the justice 

court challenging that court's granting of petitioner's motion to suppress. 

See generally NRS 189.020 ("The party intending to appeal must file with 

the justice . . . a notice entitled in the action, setting forth the character of 

the judgment, and the intention of the party to appeal therefrom to the 

district court."). 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

( I./47A •::Wu.,

2 
, C.J. 

J. 

Petitioner points to no case law or statute that supports the 

argument that the State filing an additional and superfluous notice of 

appeal in the district court to appeal a justice court's suppression decision 

would deprive the district court of its appellate jurisdiction. NRS 189.120(1) 

("The State rnay appeal to the district court from an order of a justice court 

granting the motion of a defendant to suppress evidence."). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

, 

J. 

Stiglich 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Humboldt County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Humboldt County District Attorney 

Humboldt County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(01 I947A • 

3