Opinion
SCWC-20-0000582
10-13-2020
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CIV. NO. 1CC191000393) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
()
Upon consideration of petitioner Edmund M. Abordo's petition for writ of prohibition, filed on September 28, 2020, the documents attached thereto and submitted in support thereof, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief from this court and may seek relief in an appeal from a final judgment entered in the underlying case as provided by law. See Honolulu Adv., Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition "is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his jurisdiction"); Gannett Pac. Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 226, 580 P.2d 49, 53 (1978) (a writ of prohibition is not meant to serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for writ of prohibition is denied.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for writ of prohibition without payment of the filing fee.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, October 13, 2020.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
/s/ Randal G.B. Valenciano