Opinion
26282
January 8, 2004.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
Lloyd Y. Asato, for petitioner, on the writ.
MOON, C.J., LEVINSON, NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, and DUFFY, JJ.
Upon consideration of Petitioner Beverly J. Perry's petition for a writ of prohibition, the papers in support, and the records and files herein, it appears that: (1) Petitioner seeks an order prohibiting the respondent judge from enforcing the order compelling Petitioner to order transcripts pursuant to HRAP Rule 10(b)(4) for her pending appeal docketed as Appeal No. 26151; (2) a writ of mandamus and/or prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will not issue unless the petitioner demonstrates a clear and indisputable right to relief and a lack of other means to redress adequately the alleged wrong or obtain the requested action. Evans v. Takao, 74 Haw. 267, 842 P.2d 255 (1992); see also Gannett Pacific Corp. v. Richardson, 59 Haw. 224, 580 P.2d 49 (1978) (a writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that will be granted only in rare and exigent circumstances); (3) such writs are not meant to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, nor are they to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate procedures. Evans, 74 Haw. at 279, 842 P.2d at 261; and (4) Petitioner should file any request for relief related to her appeal in her appeal. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of prohibition is denied without prejudice to Petitioner seeking any relief in her pending appeal.