Espinoza v. State of Hawaii District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division
This text of Espinoza v. State of Hawaii District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division (Espinoza v. State of Hawaii District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division) 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.
Opinion
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0005884 10-DEC-2013 08:06 AM
SCPW-13-0005884
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
DENISE ESPINOZA, Petitioner,
vs.
STATE OF HAWAII DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT, HONOLULU DIVISION, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (Case No. 1P1090009388-1P1090009423)
ORDER DENYING “EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS; WRIT OF PROHIBITION TO THE STATE OF HAWAII DISTRICT COURT OF THE FIRST CIRCUIT HONOLULU DIVISION AND JUDGE SHIRLEY KAWAMURA” (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the document submitted by
petitioner Denise Espinoza entitled “Emergency Petition for Writ
of Mandamus; Writ of Prohibition to the State of Hawaii District
Court of the First Circuit Honolulu Division and Judge Shirley
Kawamura”, which was filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus
on December 4, 2013, and the record, it appears that petitioner
does not have a clear and indisputable right to the requested
relief and has alternative means to obtain relief. Petitioner,
therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus. 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 of mandamus without
payment of the filing fee.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a
writ of mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 10, 2013.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Espinoza v. State of Hawaii District Court of the First Circuit, Honolulu Division, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espinoza-v-state-of-hawaii-district-court-of-the-f-haw-2013.