ORDER DENYING PETITION
This pro se original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order striking a pretrial petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We are not convinced that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See NRS 34.170; Pan v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 222, 224, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 841, 844 (2004) (writ relief is proper only when there is not a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law and the petitioner bears the burden to demonstrate that extraordinary relief is warranted). Petitioner has not supplied a copy of the district court order he is challenging. See Rust v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 103 Nev. 686, 689, 747 P.2d 1380, 1382 (1987) (explaining that written orders signed and filed by the district court are essential to this courts review); see also NRAP 21(a)(4) (stating that it is the petitioners obligation to provide an appendix that includes all records that may be essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition). In addition, petitioner has failed to show that he lacks a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy. Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.