Tierney v. Matsuoka
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.
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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tierney v. Matsuoka, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tierney-v-matsuoka-haw-2012.