ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This original emergency petition for a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition under NRAP 27(e) challenges a district court order remanding real party in interest Mateo Facio to the custody of Clark County Detention Center and directing that he be housed there through his trial date.
Having considered the petition and its supporting documentation, we are not persuaded that extraordinary writ relief is warranted. See NRS 34.160; NRS 34.330; Archon Corp. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 133 Nev. 816, 821, 407 P.3d 702, 707 (2017) (stating that the petitioner bears the burden of showing that writ relief is warranted). Among other reasons, petitioner has not demonstrated that emergency relief is necessary to avoid irreparable harm. See NRAP 27(e). Nor has petitioner demonstrated that the district court manifestly abused its discretion. See Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 680, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (where a district court is given discretion on an issue, “the petitioners burden to demonstrate a clear legal right to a particular course of action by that court is substantial; we can issue traditional mandamus only where the lower court has manifestly abused that discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously”); AA Primo Builders, LLC v. Washington, 126 Nev. 578, 589, 245 P.3d 1190, 1197 (2010) (reviewing an order denying a motion for reconsideration for an abuse of discretion); see also Halverson v. Hardcastle, 123 Nev. 245, 260-61, 163 P.3d 428, 439-40 (2007) (discussing courts inherent authority to carry out judicial functions). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.