Tierney v. Matsuoka

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedOctober 24, 2012
DocketSCPW-12-0000830
StatusPublished

This text of Tierney v. Matsuoka (Tierney v. Matsuoka) 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
Tierney v. Matsuoka, (haw 2012).

Opinion

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-12-0000830 24-OCT-2012 11:03 AM

NO. SCPW-12-0000830

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I

MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,

vs.

BERT Y. MATSUOKA, MICHAEL A. TOWN, JOYCE K. MATSUMORI-HOSHIJO OF THE HAWAI#I PAROLING AUTHORITY, Respondents.

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

Upon consideration of Michael C. Tierney’s petition for

a writ of mandamus, which was filed on October 2, 2012, the

documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and

the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a

clear and indisputable right to be released from custody upon the

expiration of his minimum sentence. See HRS §§ 353-68 (1993),

353-70 (1993) and 706-670 (1993). Petitioner, therefore, 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 Hawai#i

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); Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai#i 273, 274 n.3,

874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) (“A duty is ministerial where the

law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such

precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of

discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, October 24, 2012.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Richard W. Pollack

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Salling v. Moon
874 P.2d 1098 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1994)
Kema v. Gaddis
982 P.2d 334 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)
In Re the Disciplinary Board of the Hawai'i Supreme Court
984 P.2d 688 (Hawaii Supreme Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Tierney v. Matsuoka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tierney-v-matsuoka-haw-2012.