Opinion
No. SCPW-10-0000127
November 17, 2010.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
By: RECKTENWALD, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ., and Circuit Judge TRADER, assigned by reason of vacancy.
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioner Raymond Gonsalves' 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.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The request to submit additional exhibits is also denied.