Opinion
No. 30430
May 4, 2010.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CIVIL NO. 00-1-0377)
By: MOON, C.J., NAKAYAMA, ACOBA, Duffy, and RECKTENWALD, JJ.
ORDER
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael C. Tierney's petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it appears that petitioner's motion for return of property is pending in a civil action in which the non-hearing provision of Civil Administration Order 9-2 applies and the right of confrontation does not apply. Therefore, petitioner is not entitled to mandamus relief. 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.). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.