Lewis v. Department of Hawaiian Homelands

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: May 27, 2026
• Docket: SCPW-26-0000036
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 27-MAY-2026 07:58 AM Dkt. 22 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI ________________________________________________________________

HEIDI LEWIS, Petitioner,

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOMELANDS; HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION, Respondents. ________________________________________________________________

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CASE NO. 1CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Devens, C.J., McKenna, Eddins, and Ginoza, JJ., and Circuit Judge Wong, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of the petitions for writ of mandamus

filed January 20 and February 7, 2026, and the record, recusal

or disqualification of an agency official is not a ministerial

act for which an extraordinary writ is appropriate. See Barnett

v. Broderick, 84 Hawaiʻi 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996);

Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawaiʻi 273, 274 n.3, 874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3

(1994). An agency official’s decision not to recuse may instead

be reviewed on appeal. See Del Monte Fresh Produce (Hawaii), Inc. v. Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union, Local 142, AFL-CIO,

128 Hawaiʻi 289, 302, 287 P.3d 190, 203 (2012).

Also, a petition for writ of mandamus or other

extraordinary writ is not intended to be used as a second appeal

or in lieu of normal appellate procedures. See Womble Bond

Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537 P.3d 1154,

1166 (2023).

It is ordered that the petitions are denied.

It is also ordered: (1) the motion to proceed in forma

pauperis is denied as moot; (2) the motions for stay 1 are denied;

and (3) the motion for leave to file an amended and supplemented

petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, May 27, 2026.

/s/ Vladimir P. Devens

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Paul B.K. Wong

1 We construe the petition filed at docket 1 and the motion filed at docket 7 as motions for stay.