Chatman v. First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 9, 2015
DocketSCPW-15-0000892
StatusPublished

This text of Chatman v. First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii (Chatman v. First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Hawaii Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Chatman v. First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, (haw 2015).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-15-0000892 08-DEC-2015 02:20 PM

SCPW-15-0000892

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

ANTHONY K. CHATMAN, Petitioner,

vs.

FIRST CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

(S.C. No. 26763; FC-CR NO. 02-1-0011; CR. NO. 02-1-2353)

ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)

On November 18, 2015, the Office of the Chief Clerk

received a letter from petitioner Anthony K. Chatman, dated

November 3, 2015, in which he seeks a “direct appeal” to the

Supreme Court to take jurisdiction over matters pending in FC-No.

02-1-0011. The letter was filed as a petition for a writ of

mandamus. Upon consideration of the petition, the documents

attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the

record, it appears that petitioner is not presently entitled to

the requested 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); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai'i 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). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the appellate clerks’

office shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, December 8, 2015.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
Barnett v. Broderick
929 P.2d 1359 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Chatman v. First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chatman-v-first-circuit-court-of-the-state-of-hawaii-haw-2015.