ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR EXTRAORDINARY WRIT RELIEF
This is an emergency, pro se, original petition for extraordinary writ relief challenging the district courts alleged refusal to enter written orders on its oral decisions after August 24 and December 2, 2021, hearings.
1
We have reviewed the documents submitted in this matter, and we decline to exercise original jurisdiction at this time. NRS 34.020; NRS 34.160; NRS 34.170. See also Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 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); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (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 not demonstrated need for a written order indicating that an earlier no contact order still controls so as to warrant our intervention, and the district court orally recognized petitioners need for a written order on the revocation motion heard in December. This court is confident that the district court will resolve all pending matters, by written order as appropriate, as expeditiously as the courts calendar permits. State, Div. Child & Fam. Servs. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 445, 451, 92 P.3d 1239, 1243 (2004) (stating that an order must be written, signed, and filed). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
FOOTNOTES
1
. Petitioner has not demonstrated compelling reasons for seeking emergency relief within two days of filing this petition. NRAP 27(e) (explaining that a petitioner must certify that emergency relief is needed to avoid irreparable harm).