Tierney v. Perkins ( 2012 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-12-0000566
29-JUN-2012
10:00 AM
NO. SCPW-12-0000566
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
MICHAEL TIERNEY, Petitioner,
vs.
HAWAI#I PAROLING AUTHORITY, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and McKenna, JJ.
and Circuit Judge Del Rosario, assigned by reason of vacancy)
Upon consideration of petitioner Michael Tierney's
petition for a writ of mandamus and the papers in support, it
appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and
indisputable right to relief. 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.); In re Disciplinary Bd. of Hawaii
Supreme Court, 91 Hawai#i 363, 368, 984 P.2d 688, 693 (1999)
(Mandamus relief is available to compel an official to perform a
duty allegedly owed to an individual only if the individual’s
claim is clear and certain, the official’s duty is ministerial
and so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt, and no other
remedy is available.); Salling v. Moon, 76 Hawai#i 273, 274 n. 3,
874 P.2d 1098, 1099 n.3 (1994) ("A duty is ministerial where the
law prescribes and defines the duty to be performed with such
precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of
discretion and judgment.”). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 29, 2012.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr.
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Dexter D. Del Rosario
2