Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000968 10-JAN-2013 10:45 AM
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Nakayama, Acting C.J., Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Recktenwald, C.J., recused)
Upon consideration of petitioner Nathan H. Suzuki's petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on November 1, 2012, and the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the Board of Public Accountancy and/or the Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs are not performing duties that are owed to him. Moreover, petitioner can seek further review in the circuit court and the appellate court, as appropriate. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawaii 200, 204-05, 982 P.2d 334, 338-39 (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); State ex rel. Marsland v. Ames, 71 Haw. 304, 306, 788 P.2d 1281, 1283 (1990) (a writ of mandamus "may not be used to perform the office of an appeal"); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawaii 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (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). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ R. Mark Browning
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw ...