March 4, 2013
CHRIS GRINDLING, PETITIONER,
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CARDOZA, JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT COURT, RESPONDENT.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0007)
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000100 04-MAR-2013
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of petitioner Christopher
Grindling's petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on February 19, 2013, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. See HRPP 40(f) and (i). Although petitioner is entitled to a timely ruling on his Rule 40 petition, he is not entitled to the mandamus relief requested at this time. 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER 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
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.