Tierney v. Rivera

CourtHawaii Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 10, 2011
DocketSCPW-10-0000248
StatusPublished

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.

Bluebook
Tierney v. Rivera, (haw 2011).

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

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. Rivera, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tierney-v-rivera-haw-2011.