Middleton v. Betts

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedMay 26, 2022
DocketSCPW-22-0000318
StatusPublished

This text of Middleton v. Betts (Middleton v. Betts) 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
Middleton v. Betts, (haw 2022).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 26-MAY-2022 08:56 AM Dkt. 8 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

WILLIAM MIDDLETON, Petitioner

vs.

CATHY BETTS, in her capacity as Director of the Department of Human Services, State of Hawai#i, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. SNAP H-428361)

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

Upon consideration of petitioner William Middleton’s

petition for writ of mandamus, filed on May 4, 2022, the

documents attached and submitted in support, and the record,

petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to

the requested relief and a lack of alternative means to seek

relief. For example, petitioner may seek relief in the circuit

court by way of an appeal. See HRS § 91-14. Petitioner has also

not shown that respondent failed to perform a clear and certain

ministerial duty owed to him that leaves no room for

discretionary action. An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204, 982 P.2d

334, 338 (1999) (explaining that 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); Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i

109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361 (1996) (stating, with respect to a

public official, 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). Accordingly,

It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is

denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, May 26, 2022.

/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

Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
Barnett v. Broderick
929 P.2d 1359 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Middleton v. Betts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-betts-haw-2022.