Opinion
No. 30410
April 19, 2010.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
By: MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, DUFFY, and RECKTENWALD, JJ.
ORDER
Upon consideration of the petition for a writ of mandamus filed by petitioner Richard Eline, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he is entitled to mandamus relief. See HRS § 602-5(3) (Supp. 2009) (The supreme court has jurisdiction and power to issue writs of mandamus directed to public officers to compel them to fulfill the duties of their offices.); In Re Disciplinary Bd. Of 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.). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.