ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Petitioner has filed an emergency petition for a writ of mandamus.
Having reviewed the petition and supporting documents, we conclude that petitioner has not demonstrated that our ordinary intervention is warranted. Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (providing that petitioner bears 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) (explaining that it is within this courts sole discretion to determine if a writ petition will be considered); NRAP 21(b)(1). In particular, aside from requests for damages, which generally are not available in writ proceedings before this court, NRS 34.160, and for this court to allow nonlicensed attorney fees, petitioner does not specify the relief he is seeking from this court or why any such relief should be granted. With respect to the nonlicensed attorney fees issue, petitioner has not demonstrated that allowing such fees is required by law. Walker v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 136 Nev. 678, 679, 476 P.3d 1194, 1196 (2020) (recognizing that, traditionally, mandamus petitioners must demonstrate a clear legal right to the relief requested). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Cadish, C.J.
Stiglich, J.
Herndon, J.