Opinion
SCPW-22-0000354
06-09-2022
IN RE NICHOLAS K. NICHOLS
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (SCWC-12-0000043; CAAP-12-0000043; SPP NO. 11-1-0053 (CR. NOS. 08-1-1354 AND 08-1-1762))
Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Upon consideration of Nicholas K. Nichols' (petitioner's) letter filed on May 23, 2022, which we construe as a petition for writ of mandamus, and the record, petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner may seek relief in the circuit court by filing another HRPP Rule 40 petition. An extraordinary writ is 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). Accordingly,
It is ordered that the petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
It is further ordered that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the submission without payment of the filing fees.