Opinion
SCPW-19-0000458
07-15-2019
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(FC-D NO. 16-1-1290) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
()
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael Noghrey's petition for writ of mandamus, filed on June 24, 2019, the documents attached, and the record, it appears that, in light of the documents submitted to this court in support of the petition, petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to the requested extraordinary writ. See HRS § 601-7; 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; it is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of his or her jurisdiction). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, July 15, 2019.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson