Case Title: Mausert v. Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaii

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2007-08-14T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 28650

 

XW THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE oF uawar'r BEE
Ed

KURT MAUSERT, Petitioner, 22)

vs. 3

DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF HAWAI'I:
MARK BENNETT; CHRISTOPHER YOUNG

DEPARTMENT OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, CITY AND

COUNTY OF HONOLULU; PETER CARLISLE, Respondents.

 

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

‘ORDER
Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, 9J.)

 

upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamis filed by petitioner Kurt Mausert and the papers in
support, it appears that Hawai'i Revised statutes (HRS) § 8020-
4(a)(1) (Supp. 2006) affords petitioner the right to notice of a
final disposition or a major development, as defined by HRS §
8010-2 (1993). Petitioner acknowledges notice from the Attorney
Genera, which is notice in accordance with HRS § 8010-4 (a) (1)
(Supp. 2006) inasmuch as it is notice of a major development, as
defined by HRS § 801D-2 (1993), and the basis for the notice is
not a statutory requirenent. Petitioner fails to demonstrate
that a final disposition or a major development, as defined by
HRS § @01D-2 (1993), hae been effected by the Prosecuting
Attorney for which petitioner is entitled to notice under HRS §
801D-4(a) (1) (Supp. 2006). Therefore, petitioner fails to
demonstrate @ clear and indisputable right to relief and is not
entitled to a writ of mandamus. See Kena v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i
200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus will not

aaa
issue unless a petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable
right to relief and a lack of other means to redress adequately
the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; In Re
Disciplinary Bd, of Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 994
P.2d 688 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an
official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only
Af the individual’s claim is clear and certain, the official's
duty is ministerial and so plainly prescribed as to be free from
doubt, and no other remedy is available.). Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 14, 2007.

Gr

Aca Phone

ease OY umiltsed oem

Wo Dig bo"