Tierney v. Frank, Director of the Department of Public Safety, State of Hawaii

• Court: Hawaii Supreme Court
• Decided: November 29, 2010
• Docket: SCPW-10-0000165
• Status: Published

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-10-0000165 29-NOV-2010 02:38 PM

NO. SCPW-10-0000165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs.

CLAYTON FRANK, DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

ORDER

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.

and Circuit Judge Alm, assigned by reason of vacancy)

Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's

petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it

appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and

indisputable right to relief. Therefore, petitioner is not

entitled to mandamus relief. 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; In re. Disciplinary Bd. Of the

Hawaii Supreme Court, 91 Hawai'i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693

(1999) (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 HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate

court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without

payment of the filing fee.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, November 29, 2010.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.

/s/ Steven S. Alm