ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, PROHIBITION
This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition seeks to prohibit respondents from enforcing family court custodial orders that petitioners assert are void because they result from the family courts determination that petitioners committed domestic violence. Petitioners argue that the family court lacks jurisdiction to make such a determination because petitioners have never been indicted or tried for such crimes by the State of Nevada.
In advancing these arguments, petitioners have failed to demonstrate that they lack an adequate legal remedy by way of appeal and that extraordinary relief is warranted, and we therefore decline to exercise our discretion to entertain this petition. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330; Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008) (“[N]either a writ of prohibition nor a writ of mandamus is appropriate if the petitioner has a plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (“Petitioners carry the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.”); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (providing that writ relief is purely discretionary).
It is well established that an appeal is generally an adequate remedy precluding writ relief. Pan at 224, 88 P.3d at 841. Moreover, even when an appeal is not immediately available because the challenged order is interlocutory in nature, the fact that the order may ultimately be challenged on appeal from a final judgment generally precludes writ relief: “[m]andamus is also not available when the petitioner has a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and the opportunity to appeal a final judgment typically provides an adequate legal remedy.” Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 524, 262 P.3d 360, 364 (2011) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
FOOTNOTES
1
. Petitioners’ emergency motion for stay under NRAP 27(e), filed on March 28, 2022, and opposed by real party in interest Amber Phillips, nka Amber Korpak, on April 4, 2022, is therefore denied as moot.