June 29, 2012
MICHAEL TIERNEY, PETITIONER,
HAWAII PAROLING AUTHORITY, RESPONDENT.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000566 29-JUN-2012 10:00 AM
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ. and Circuit Judge Del Rosario, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaii 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 Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawaii 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.); Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawaii 273, 274 n. 3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) ("A duty is ministerial where the law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion and judgment."). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Dexter D. Del Rosario
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.