Abordo v. Immediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: February 2, 2015
• Docket: SCPW-15-0000033
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000033 02-FEB-2015 12:12 PM

SCPW-15-0000033

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

EDMUND M. ABORDO, Petitioner,

vs.

INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Court,

and

DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and SHARI KIMOTO, MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-13-0001474; CIV. NO. 11-1-2228)

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

document entitled “Plaintiff-Appellant’s Writ of Mandamus for

Violation of the Rules [of] the Court and the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution,” filed on January

20, 2015, and the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to

demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to an

immediate decision in CAAP-13-0001474 and, therefore, mandamus relief is not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 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). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 2, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson