Nguyen v. Romanchak

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: February 24, 2010
• Docket: 30341
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 30341 -»~» :N mt SUPREME coURT or THE STATE or HAwAIi‘_;] §§

\/:NH H. NGUYEN, P@ti:i@n@r, \ vs. §§ §§

THE HONORABLE ERlC G. ROMANCHAK, JUDGE OF THE FAMlLY COURT OF THE SECOND ClRCUlT, STATE OF HAWAl‘I, ReSpOndent.

ORlGlNAL PROCEEDING (FC-D No. O5~l~O352)

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, A駧§¥iDuffy, and Recktenwa1d, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Vinh V. Nguyen’s January 4, 2010 letter to the Chief Justice, which we treat as a petition for a writ of mandamus, it appears that petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. See Kema v.'Gaddis, 91 HawaiH 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.). Accordingly, 1T 15 HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process petitioner’s January 4, 2010 letter as a petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee. 1T 1S FURTHER 0RDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied without prejudice to seeking relief in the family court.

DATED: Honolulu, HawaiHq

February 24, 20l0.

J%¢%-

<'V"‘*'lw»cct.,£~.`"?"€‘»d¢£'»lq LL/~@,<,

/@»-~W\Y

g§d»rvoa_£.¢@'-*\%Ig\'

§§ §L§