Middleton v. Betts
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Middleton v. Betts, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/middleton-v-betts-haw-2022.