Abordo v. Chang

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: April 8, 2019
• Docket: SCPW-19-0000272
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 08-APR-2019 02:07 PM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

EDMUND M. ABORDO, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE GARY W. B. CHANG, Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIV. NO. 12-1-2207-08)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

Upon consideration of petitioner Edmund M. Abordo’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on March 28, 2019, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that

he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief,

that he lacks alternative means to seek relief, or that the

respondent judge committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of

discretion or acted in excess of his jurisdiction. Petitioner,

therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ.

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; a

writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal

discretionary authority of the lower courts or serve as a legal

remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerks’

office shall process the petition for writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, April 8, 2019.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson