Opinion
SCPW-22-0000439
07-27-2022
IN THE MATTER OF KALEO LINDSEY
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 3CC17100212K).
By Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Upon consideration of Kaleo Lindsey's (Petitioner's) "Special-Proceeding Ex Parte, Invoking: Epistolary Jurisdiction," filed on July 8, 2022, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, the documents attached and submitted in support, and the record, Petitioner does not cite to any authority that allows this court to require a stay of an ongoing foreclosure proceeding absent an appeal and at the request of what appears to be a non-party to the ongoing proceeding. See HRAP Rule 8. An extraordinary writ is thus not warranted. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (explaining that 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; such writs are not meant to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the lower court, nor are they meant to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures). Accordingly, It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
It is further ordered that the appellate court clerk shall process the petition without payment of the filing fee.
Mark E. Recktenwald, Paula A. Nakayama, Sabrina S. McKenna, Michael D. Wilson, Todd W. Eddins