Tierney v. Perkins

Opinion

LAW LTBRAF%Y

N0. 30429 :N THE sUPREME coURT or THE sTATE 0F HAwA;T F“*~? M:cHAEL c. TIERNEY, Petiti@n@r, §§ sr vS. §§ % { , THE HoNoRABLE R1cHARD K. PERK1Ns, JUDGE or THE " r~ coURT or THE F:RsT cIRcU1T, sTATE or HAwAr:, R@_ §§ fn __ oR:G1NAL PRocEED:NG §§

Acoba, Duffy, Tierney's

it

(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C.

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

See Hawafi Rules of Penal

_appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and 91 Hawafi 200,

indisputable right to relief. Procedure, Rule 40(a) and (c)(2); Kema v. Gaddis,

982 P.2d 334, 338 (l999) (A writ of mandamus is an

204,

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 Therefore

obtain the requested action.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of

mandamus is denied. Honolulu, Hawafi, May 4, 20lO.

DATED:

PYow4nLY*7%MMUuj@J¥w

/e-~§

%v~a>f. *()W@@[ %\ l mm ~’-‘- Ac¢z»¢¢/¢.M//M