In re: Birthdaysuit III

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMarch 4, 2021
DocketSCPW-21-0000094
StatusPublished

This text of In re: Birthdaysuit III (In re: Birthdaysuit III) 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
In re: Birthdaysuit III, (haw 2021).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 04-MAR-2021 07:58 AM Dkt. 6 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

IN RE GYM BIRTHDAYSUIT III, formerly known as James Paul Calzetta aka James Paul Calzeta, Petitioner.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

Upon consideration of petitioner Gym Birthdaysuit III’s

request that this court remove his name from the vexatious

litigant list, which was filed as a petition for writ of mandamus

on March 2, 2021, 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 be

removed from the vexatious litigant list or that he is being

denied the opportunity to seek court approval for any new court

filings. Based on the information presented in the petition, the

extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus is not warranted. See

HRS 634J-7; 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241,

580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to

supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts,

cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of

normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the

appellate court shall process the petition for writ of mandamus

without payment of the filing fee.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, March 4, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

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

Related

Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao
580 P.2d 58 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1978)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
In re: Birthdaysuit III, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-birthdaysuit-iii-haw-2021.