Judges for Justice v. Nakamoto

Full title: JUDGES FOR JUSTICE, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge…

Court: SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI'I

Date published: Sep 9, 2020

SCPW-20-0000085 (Haw. Sep. 9, 2020)

Opinion

SCPW-20-0000085

09-09-2020

JUDGES FOR JUSTICE, Petitioner, v. THE HONORABLE HENRY T. NAKAMOTO, Judge of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawai'i, Respondent Judge, and ALBERT IAN SCHWEITZER; STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondents.

By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Wilson, JJ., and Circuit Judge Nakasone, assigned by reason of vacancy

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(S.P. NO. 07-1-0007) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION AND WRIT OF MANDAMUS
()

Upon consideration of petitioner Judges for Justice's petition for writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus, respondent Albert Ian Schweitzer's answering brief, respondent State of Hawai'i's answer, the respondent judge's answer, the respective supporting documents, and the record, it appears that petitioner is currently seeking relief by way of an appeal in the Intermediate Court of Appeals in CAAP-20-0000374. Extraordinary relief is therefore not warranted. See 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); 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 writ of prohibition and writ of mandamus is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, September 9, 2020.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Karen T. Nakasone