Case Title: Tierney v. Frank, Director of the Department of Public Safety, State of Hawaii

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2010-11-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-10-0000165 29-NOV-2010 02:38 PM NO. SCPW-10-0000165 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, vs. CLAYTON FRANK, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and Circuit Judge Alm, assigned by reason of vacancy) Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of alternative means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action; In re. Disciplinary Bd. Of the Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999) (Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual only if 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). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 29, 2010. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. /s/ Steven S. Alm 2