Electronically Filed 

Supreme Court 

30742 

08-NOV-2010 

02:07 PM 

NO. 30742
 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I 

ANTHONY GIGNAC, Petitioner,
 

vs.
 

CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I; and


DOUGLAS S. CHIN, DEPUTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY, Respondents. 


ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
 

(CR. NO. 95-2553)
 

ORDER
 

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.


and Circuit Judge Kubo, assigned by reason of vacancy)
 

Upon consideration of petitioner Anthony Gignac's 

"Motion for Appropriate Relief," filed on September 22, 2010, 

which is deemed a petition for a writ of mandamus, and the papers 

in support, it appears that the lodging of a detainer is within 

the discretion of the prosecuting officer and HRS Chapter 834 

(Agreement on Detainers) is invoked only when a detainer is 

lodged. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief 

as to the respondent prosecuting attorney's decision not to lodge 

a detainer against petitioner and as to the circuit court's 

denial of petitioner's motion to dismiss Cr. No. 95-2553 for 

violation of HRS Chapter 834. 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).
 

It further appears that the filing of documents is a 

ministerial duty of the circuit court and petitioner has an 

indisputable right to have his documents filed by the circuit 

court. Therefore, petitioner is entitled to mandamus relief as 

to the respondent circuit court's refusal to file, in Cr. No. 95­

2553, petitioner's "Motion for Continuance/Lift Warrant" dated 

August 12, 2010. See Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai'i 109, 111, 

929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996). Therefore, 

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 as to: (1) the respondent prosecuting
 

attorney's decision not to lodge a detainer against petitioner,
 

and (2) the circuit court's denial of petitioner's motion to
 

dismiss Cr. No. 95-2553.
 

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
 

mandamus is granted as to the circuit court's refusal to file, in
 

Cr. No. 95-2553, petitioner's "Motion for Continuance/Lift
 

Warrant" dated August 12, 2010. The circuit court of the first
 

circuit shall file such document upon petitioner's resubmission
 

of the document for filing.
 

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 8, 2010. 

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
 

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
 

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
 

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr. 


/s/ Edward H. Kubo, Jr.
 

2