Tierney v. Rivera
This text of Tierney v. Rivera (Tierney v. Rivera) 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-10-0000248 10-JAN-2011 02:30 PM
NO. SCPW-10-0000248
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I
MICHAEL C. TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
LINDA MOGA RIVERA, Inmate Grievance Specialist,
Halawa Correctional Facility, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and
Circuit Judge Kim, 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 extraordinary relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (2009)
("The supreme court shall have jurisdiction and power . . . [t]o
exercise original jurisdiction in all questions . . . arising
under writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel
them to fulfill the duties of their offices[.]”); 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, January 10, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ James E. Duffy, Jr.
/s/ Glenn J. Kim
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Tierney v. Rivera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tierney-v-rivera-haw-2011.