October 24, 2012
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY,
BERT Y. MATSUOKA, MICHAEL A. TOWN, JOYCE K. MATSUMORI-HOSHIJO OF THE HAWAII PAROLING AUTHORITY,
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000830 24-OCT-2012 11:03 AM
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on October 2, 2012, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to be released from custody upon the expiration of his minimum sentence. See HRS §§ 353-68 (1993), 353-70 (1993) and 706-670 (1993). Petitioner, therefore, 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/ Richard W. Pollack
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.