IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

HUGO MARTINEZ REYES, No. 81313 Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF FILED CLARK, Respondent, H A. BROWN and CLE UPRE THE STATE OF NEVADA, BY DEPUTY CLERK Real Party in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

This is an original pro se petition that has been construed as a petition for a writ of mandamus seeking recusal of the district court judge and prosecutor in petitioner's criminal case.

Problematically, 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 rnatters set forth in the petition"). Therefore, without deciding the merits of the claims raised, we decline to exercise our original jurisdiction in this matter. See NRAP 21(b).

We reiterate that "[Metitioner[ ] cardies} the burden of demonstrating that extraordinary relief is warranted." Pan v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 120 Nev. 222, 228, 88 P.3d 840, 844 (2004).

SUPREME Couerr OF NEVADA (0) I947A .414.•-• c :x.1012.-17 K•%. .0; lual.1.:11441k And, to the extent petitioner has counsel, he must proceed by and through that counsel. Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.'

Pickering

,J. #444a1.49 J.

Hardesty Stighch

cc: Hugo Martinez Reyes Attorney General/Carson City Clark County District Attorney Eighth District Court Clerk

1Petitioner's failure to provide timely proof of service of the petition constitutes an additional basis upon which to deny relief. NRAP 21(a)(1).

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 10) 1947A 401.

.• . •;:.›.,-.1 -4%; • • 4:1-1..VetftVtarei.41,