Maddox v. Loo

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedFebruary 27, 2020
DocketSCPW-20-0000006
StatusPublished

This text of Maddox v. Loo (Maddox v. Loo) 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
Maddox v. Loo, (haw 2020).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 27-FEB-2020 02:07 PM

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MICKEY A. MADDOX, Petitioner,

vs.

THE HONORABLE RHONDA I. L. LOO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Second Circuit, State of Hawai#i, Respondent Judge,

and

STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (SCWC-XX-XXXXXXX; S.P.P. NO. 13-1-0004; CR. NO. 09-1-0284)

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

Upon consideration of petitioner Mickey A. Maddox’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on January 6, 2020, the

respondent State of Hawai#i’s answer, filed on February 6, 2020,

the respondent judge’s response, filed on February 6, 2020, the

respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that

the circuit court has granted the motion for new counsel and

appointed new counsel to represent petitioner, the motion for

disqualification/recusal is currently set for February 18, 2020, at 8:15 a.m., and, as explained by the respondent judge, once the

motion for disqualification/recusal has been decided, the

evidentiary hearing will be set. Thus, based on the current

state of the underlying record in this case, petitioner’s request

for extraordinary relief is not warranted. 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); Wong v. Fong, 60 Haw. 601,

604, 593 P.2d 386, 389 (1979) (an extraordinary writ will

ordinarily be invoked in exceptional circumstances amounting to

judicial usurpation of power). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 27, 2020.

/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

Wong v. Fong
593 P.2d 386 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1979)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Maddox v. Loo, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maddox-v-loo-haw-2020.