ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original pro se petition for a writ of mandamus seeks a writ directing the district court to vacate its order denying a motion for default judgment and striking entry of default—alleging that the attorney general did not represent defendants at the time the complaint was served and therefore service on the attorney general was not required.
Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that he lacks 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; 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). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.