March 19, 2014
EILEEN SHAVELSON, Petitioner,
THE HONORABLE RANDAL G.B. VALENCIANO, JUDGE OF THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT, THE HONORABLE CRAIG H. NAKAMURA, and THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE M. REIFURTH, JUDGES OF THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Civil No. 13-1-0137)
Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and Circuit Judge Border, assigned by reason of vacancy.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Upon consideration of petitioner Eileen Shavelson's petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on February 21, 2014, and the record, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to the requested writ of mandamus. Petitioner fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right to have the judges removed from her case and petitioner has alternative means of seeking relief. 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 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.