Hasegawa v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel
This text of Hasegawa v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel (Hasegawa v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel) 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-12-0000671 08-AUG-2012 NO. SCPW-12-0000671
01:59 PM IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
CLIFTON M. HASEGAWA, Petitioner,
vs.
OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.)
By e-mail dated July 12, 2012, which we treat as a
petition for a writ of mandamus, petitioner Clifton Hasegawa asks
this court to direct the Office of Disciplinary Counsel to proceed
with an investigation into the complaints he filed against David M.
Louie, John M. Molay, Mark J. Bennett and Caron (misspelled "Coron")
Inagaki.
A writ of mandamus and/or prohibition will not issue
unless a petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to
relief and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged
wrong or obtain the requested action. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91
Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999). 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. In re Disciplinary Bd., 94 Hawai'i 363, 368, 371, 984 P.2d 688, 693, 695
(1999) (citations omitted). Inasmuch as disciplinary counsel has
authority to investigate and dismiss matters involving alleged
misconduct called to his or her attention, which actions are more
than ministerial, see RSCH Rule 2.6(b)(2) and (3); In re
Disciplinary Bd., 94 Hawai'i at 368, 371, 984 P.2d 688 at 693, 695,
Hasegawa fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to mandamus
relief. 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 FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 8, 2012. /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
Hasegawa v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hasegawa-v-office-of-disciplinary-counsel-haw-2012.