ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
This is an original, pro se petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging several aspects of the underlying child support enforcement action against petitioner.
In particular, petitioner asserts that real party in interest lacks standing to pursue the matter through the district attorneys office under NRS 125B. 150(3) and Hedlund v. Hedlund, 111 Nev. 325, 890 P.2d 790 (1995), as she and the child live outside of Nevada. He also asserts infringement on his Sixth Amendment right to counsel, claiming that the contempt proceedings below are criminal in nature; contends that an employee of the district attorneys office improperly modified a hearing date set by the district court, as set forth in a notice of hearing she served; and argues that the hearing master improperly heard the matter in November 2021, when a disqualification motion was pending against the judge who appointed that hearing master. Further, in a subsequently filed emergency motion for stay and supplement thereto, petitioner asserts that the contempt proceedings are based on a child support order that is void for violating protections afforded a criminal defendant and thus unenforceable.
Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. NRS 34.160; NRS 34.320; Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (recognizing that petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that writ relief is warranted); Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
1
FOOTNOTES
1
. In light of this order, petitioners emergency motion for stay of the March 22, 2022, hearing pending our consideration of this matter is denied as moot.