Court Opinion

ID: 2644500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-11-30 01:01:26.861422+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:30.550698
License: Public Domain

Electronically Filed
                                                      Supreme Court
                                                      SCPW-13-0003439
                                                      27-NOV-2013
                                                      10:15 AM

                          SCPW-13-0003439

           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

                        JAMES P. CALZETTA,

                            Petitioner,

                                vs.

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

                          Respondent.

                        ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

                           (SC-10-1-0731)

           ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

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

           By letter to the Chief Justice, which was filed as a

petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner James P. Calzetta

appears to be challenging a 2010 order declaring him a vexatious

litigant, and asks the court to “restore [his] access to the

courts.”   Upon consideration of the petition, the documents

submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that

petitioner is not entitled to the requested relief.   Petitioner

fails to demonstrate that he is being denied the opportunity to

seek court approval to file a new case or that he attempted to

file a new case and was denied the opportunity.   Under these

circumstances, the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is

not warranted.   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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,

cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedure; rather, it is meant to restrain a

judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his

or her jurisdiction).   Accordingly,

          IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied. 

          DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 27, 2013.
                               /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

                               /s/ Paula A. Nakayama

                               /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

                               /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

                               /s/ Richard W. Pollack

                                 2