IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

JESSE L. LUCIO, No. 80521 Petitioner, vs. JERRY HOWELL, WARDEN, S.D.C.C.; AND THE STATE OF NEVADA, FILED Respondents.

ORDER DENYING PETITION BY

In this original pro se petition for a writ of quo warranto or prohibition, petitioner challenges the constitutionality of the Nevada Revised Statutes.

Petitioner's claims are outside the scope of those for which quo warranto may be granted. See Lueck v. Teuton, 125 Nev. 674, 678-79, 219 P.3d 895, 898 (2009). We therefore decline to entertain the petition for a writ of quo warranto.

A writ of prohibition may issue to restrain the district court from acting in excess of its jurisdiction. NRS 34.320; Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist, Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). This court has complete discretion in deciding whether to entertain a petition seeking such relief. Cote H. v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 36, 39, 175 P.3d 906, 908 (2008). Having considered the petition, we are not persuaded that our extraordinary and discretionary intervention is warranted. See Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004) (observing that the party seeking writ relief bears the burden of showing

2 - 0 itlif 4:rit . such relief is warranted). Accordingly, without deciding upon the merits of any claims raised, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Pieol&f. , C.J.

Pickering

iAte.4,ezA.L\ Hardesty J.

Cadish Ceo* , J.

Jesse Lucio Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

'Petitioner has not provided this court with exhibits or other documentation that would support his claims for relief. 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"). This constitutes an additional basis for denying relief.

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10) 1947A GOOD 2 ;'41eri I 1.1 11111 1! 412 i 4ii