Court Opinion

ID: 871680
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-05-25 02:17:48.753643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:10:54.069250
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                     Supreme Court
                                                     SCPW-11-0001091
                                                     25-JAN-2012
                                                     01:51 PM

                       NO. SCPW-11-0001091

          IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

                 MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

                               vs.

     DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI'I,

                          Respondent.

                       ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                              ORDER

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

          Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's 

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it

appears that petitioner claims that the district court neglected

to file a notice of appeal that petitioner submitted for filing

in 1998 in Case No. Case No. 98306130.   Petitioner provides no

evidence in support of his claim and fails to demonstrate a clear

and indisputable right to relief.   Therefore, petitioner is not

entitled to mandamus relief.   See HRS § 602-5(3) (2010) (“The

supreme court shall have jurisdiction and power . . . [t]o

exercise original jurisdiction in all questions . . . arising

under writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel

them to fulfill the duties of their offices[.]”); In re

Disciplinary Bd. of 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 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, January 25, 2012.

                              /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

                              /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

                              /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

                              /s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

                              /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

                                2