Opinion
SCPW-14-00000567
04-08-2014
STATE OF HAWAI'I, Respondent, v. ROY ALAN COSTA, Petitioner.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CR. NO. 00-1-0253)
ORDER DENYING "MOTION RULE 16. GOVERNMENT DISCOVERY
INSPECTION AND DISCLOSURE . . , MOTION TO DISAGREE
DECISION'S APPEAL FROM THE SECOND CIRCUIT COURT'S JUDGMENT
FROM WHICH THE APPEAL IS TAKEN, SHOULD NOT BE AFFIRMED"
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ., and
Upon consideration of petitioner Roy Costa's document entitled "Motion Rule 16. Government Discovery Inspection and Disclosure . . , Motion to Disagree Decision's Appeal from the Second Circuit Court's Judgment from which the Appeal is Taken, Should not be Affirmed", which was filed as a petition for a writ of mandamus on March 18, 2014, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief and that he lacks alternative means to seek relief. An extraordinary writ, therefore, is not warranted. See 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); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of mandamus is not intended to supersede the legal discretionary authority of the trial courts, cure a mere legal error, or serve as a legal remedy in lieu of normal appellate procedure). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate court shall process the petition for a writ of mandamus without payment of the filing fee.
IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that the petition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, April 8, 2014.
Mark E. Recktenwald
Paula A. Nakayama
Sabrina S. McKenna
Richard W. Pollack
Karen T. Nakasone