Opinion
SCPW-22-0000463
09-19-2022
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (CASE NO. 2DV211000420)
Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR PROHIBITION
Upon consideration of Petitioner's petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition, filed on July 29, 2022, the documents attached and submitted in support, and the record, Petitioner has not demonstrated a clear and indisputable right to relief. Petitioner has also not demonstrated that the respondent judge exceeded the court's jurisdiction, committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or refused to act on a matter properly before the court under circumstances in which the judge has a legal duty to act. Petitioner is thus not entitled to the requested extraordinary writs. See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai'i 200, 204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (1999) (explaining that 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; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge who has exceeded the judge's jurisdiction, has committed a flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in which the judge has a legal duty to act); Honolulu Advertiser, Inc. v. Takao, 59 Haw. 237, 241, 580 P.2d 58, 62 (1978) (a writ of prohibition "is an extraordinary remedy . . . to restrain a judge of an inferior court from acting beyond or in excess of [their] jurisdiction"). Accordingly, It is ordered that the petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is denied.