IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CONRAD G. ANCHETA, No. 78927 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, JUL 0 3 2019 Respondent, and ADAM S. KUTNER, P.C.; AND ALLAN P. LONG, Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Petitioner, in pro se, filed a Notice of the Filing of the Writ of Mandamus-First Amendment Petition, which this court has construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus. In addition, petitioner submitted an appendix, which only shows various entries on the Eighth Judicial District Court's docket and contains a list of what appears to be the documents petitioner contends are relevant to the resolution of the instant writ petition.

Problematically, petitioner has not stated what rehef he seeks nor has he provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would assist the court in making such a determination. See NRAP 21(a)(4) (providing the petitioner shall submit an appendix containing all documents essential to understand the matters set forth in the petition").

Therefore, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter, see NRS 34.160; NRAP 21(b); Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, SUPREME COURT OF NEvADA pl. yrs- IT (0) 1947A 4106P. 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) ("Petitioner[ cardies] the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted.").

Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED

------- Gibbon?9:s:911t)*r.84h

Add,. , J. /A, , J.

Pickering Hardesty cc: Conrad G. Ancheta Backus, Carranza & Burden Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Fassett & Cardoza Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA

(0) 1947A 440.

,