Case Title: Tierney v. District Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii.

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2009-07-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 29904

 

 

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner, &
DISTRICT COURT OF THE FiRsT cracurt, | = =

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(By: Moony Ges) Nakayana, Resea, Bufty, and Recktenwald, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioner Michael C. Tierney and the papers in
eupport, it appears that petitioner submitted to the district
court of the first circuit, pursuant to HAS § 604-10.5 (Supp.
2008), a Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining Order and

for Injunction Against Harassment (petition). The district court

 

upon receipt and review of the petition -- struck the petition
without filing and returned it to petitioner. Petitioner seeks a
writ of mandamus directing the district court to file the
petition.

A writ of mandamus will issue where a petitioner

demonstrates a cl

 

© and indisputable right to relief and a lack
of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain

ted action. Kema v, Gaddia, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982
lief is available to compel an

the requ

 

P.2d 334, 338 (1999), Mandamus

 

official to perform a duty allegedly owed to an individual 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,

aa
and no other remedy is available. In Re Disciplinary Bd. of

Hawaii Suprene Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.24 688, 693
(1999), citing Barnett v, Broderick, 84 Hawai'i 109, 111, 929

P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996).

Petitioner has an indisputable right to have his
petition for temporary restraining order filed. gee DCRCP S(e)
(Any other rule to the contrary notwithstanding, the clerk shall
not refuse to accept for filing any paper presented for that

purpose solely because it is not presented in proper fozm[.

 

The filing of the petition is a ministerial duty of the district
court. The district court struck the petition without filing and
returned it to petitioner. Petitioner has no remedy other than
mandamus. Therefore,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without
Payment of the filing fee.

17 18 FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for writ of
mandamus is granted as follows:

1. ‘The clerk of the appellate court shall forthwith
transmit to the District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu
Division, the papers enclosed with the petition for writ of
mandamus, to wit: (1) Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining

Order and for Injunction Against Har:

 

sment; (2) Return of

 

Service; (3) Ex Parte Application for Relief from Costs; and (4)

district court Form 10-P-985.
Division,
forthvith

order and

 

2. The District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu

 

upon receipt of ¢

 

1e aforementioned papers, shall

file the Petition for Ex Parte Temporary Restraining

 

 

for Injunction Against Harassment.

Dated: Honolulu, Haw

 

» duly 8, 2008.

Grrr

Becta OS rtutiay ine

aL

Gane Dele +
Pia 2. Meet benef