Nice v. Lopez

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: February 4, 2025
• Docket: SCPW-24-0000183
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX 04-FEB-2025 08:48 AM Dkt. 85 ODDP

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, and SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

CAMERON NICE and MARTHA NICE, Petitioners,

vs.

THE HONORABLE ANNE E. LOPEZ, Attorney General, Department of the Attorney General, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent.

(5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX)

THE HONORABLE KATHERINE G. LEONARD, Acting Chief Judge of the Intermediate Court of Appeals; THE HONORABLE KAREN T. NAKASONE, Associate Judge of the Intermediate Court of Appeals; and THE HONORABLE SONJA M.P. MCCULLEN, Associate Judge of the Intermediate Court of Appeals, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judges.

(CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX; CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX) SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

THE HONORABLE RANDAL VALENCIANO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Fifth Circuit, State of Hawaiʻi, Respondent Judge.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS

ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, Ginoza, and Eddins, JJ., and Circuit Judge Kawamura, in place of Devens, J., recused)

Upon consideration of the petitions for a writ of mandamus

filed in SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX on March 20, 2024, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX on

April 24, 2024, and SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX on October 8, 2024, and the

records of these SCPW cases and other cases, 1 Petitioners have

repeatedly sought extraordinary relief from this court

concerning the same case (5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX). In these prior

petitions, Petitioners have repeatedly levied accusations of

bias, discrimination, and retaliation against Judge Valenciano.

This court has denied those petitions. See SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX

docket 16; SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX docket 14; SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX docket 37.

1 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX, 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-XX-XXXXXXX, CAAP-24- 0000015, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, and SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX.

2 The petitions filed in this consolidated proceeding is more

of the same against Judge Valenciano and concerning the same

case, 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX. Except Petitioners have now levied

similar accusations against the Attorney General of the State of

Hawaiʻi and the Judges of the Intermediate Court of Appeals. We

deny the requested writs in these three SCPW cases.

In SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, whether an investigation and

prosecution should occur is discretionary for the Attorney

General of the State of Hawaiʻi. See State v. Yokota, 143

Hawaiʻi 200, 206, 426 P.3d 424, 430 (2018). An extraordinary

writ is not used to interfere with the discretionary authority

of a public official. 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).

In SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, Petitioners seek an extraordinary writ

against three Judges of the Intermediate Court of Appeals that,

among other things, accuse them of not following the Hawaiʻi

Revised Code of Judicial Conduct and being “complicit to the

crime of” fraud and “theft of $50,000 perpetrated by Judge

Valenciano” because these Judges have not corrected an alleged

“Appellate Court Clerk Fraud” and have not reported alleged

judicial and attorney fraud. We deny the requested writ. See

Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP v. Kim, 153 Hawaiʻi 307, 319, 537

3 P.3d 1154, 1166 (2023); see also Hawaiʻi Revised Statutes § 602-

59 (2016 & Supp. 2017); Hawaiʻi Rules of Appellate Procedure Rule

40.1 (eff. 2023).

In SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, Petitioners again seek a writ that

vacates Judge Valenciano’s various orders in 5CCV-XX-XXXXXXX,

including the contempt order. The same issues were raised in

other SCPW cases, including SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX. We again deny the

requested writ.

It is ordered:

1. The petitions for writ of mandamus filed in SCPW-24-

0000183, SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, and SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX are denied.

2. With the exception of a single motion for

reconsideration of this order, if any, the appellate clerk shall

not accept further filings from Petitioners in this consolidated

proceeding.

3. The requests to proceed in forma pauperis are denied

as moot.

4. The motions filed at dockets 57 and 71 of SCPW-24-

0000183, dockets 8 and 22 of SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX, and dockets 27,

47, 49, and 51 of SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX are denied. See Womble, 153

Hawaiʻi at 319, 537 P.3d at 1166.

4 5. The motion filed at docket 75 of SCPW-XX-XXXXXXX is

denied because the consolidation order speaks for itself.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, February 4, 2025.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Todd W. Eddins

/s/ Lisa M. Ginoza

/s/ Shirley M. Kawamura