Case Title: Na Moku Aupuni O Koolau Hui v. Thielen

Citation: 

Docket Number: 28970

State: hawaii

Court: Hawaii Supreme Court

Date: 2008-02-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wo, 28970

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAT'T

   
 

NA MOKU AUPUNI 0 KO'OLAU HUI, BEATRICE KEKAHUNA;
and MARJORIE WALLET, ‘Petitioners, =

LAURA H. THIELEN, in her official capacity as Interim
Chaitperson of the Commission on Water Resource
Management and Interim Chairperson of the Department
of Land and Natural Resources; CHIYOME L. FUKINO,
MEREDITH J. CHING, JAMES A. FRAZIER, NEAL S. FUJIWARA,
DONNA FAY K. ‘KIYOSAKI, and LAWRENCE H. MIIKE,
in their official capacities as members of the
Commission on Water Resource Management; and
KEN KAWAHARA, in his official capacity 2s the
Deputy Director for the Commission on Water
Resource Management, Respondents.

 

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(ay: Moon, €.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Dufty, oJ.)

Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of
mandamus filed by petitioners Na Moki Aupuni 0 Ko'olau Hu,
Beatrice Kekahuna and Marjorie Wallet, and the papers in support,
4 appears that petitioners consented to the three-year USGS
study on the May 24, 2001 petitions and thereby waived the 180-
day provision of HRS § 1740-712) (B) (1993).

1t further appears that the Commission on Water
Resource Management’s (the Comission) purported duty =~ under
other authorities cited by petitioners -- to timely resolve the
May 24, 2001 petitions is not a ministerial duty inasmuch the
cited authorities do not prescribe and define the duty with
precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of
discretion or judgment. See Sallina v, Moon, 76 Hawai't 273, 274
1.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994).

 

oats
It finally appears that the matter of the burden of
proof on the May 24, 2001 petitions is reviewable on judicial
review of a final decision on the May 24, 2001 petitions and
petitioners fail to demonstrate that the Commission has refused
to and will not render a final decision on the petitions.
Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to mandamus relief. See
Koma v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 962 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 2 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 1s ministerial and so plainly prescribed as
to be free from doubt, and no other remedy is available).
Accordingly,

IT 18 HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
nandanus is denied.

paret

 

Honolulu, Hawai'i, February 19, 2008

SRM eceeneen—

\ .
Peseces COT capden youre

&. Dokigs