Labatte v. Luke ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                                        Electronically Filed
    Supreme Court
    SCPW-15-0000936
    21-DEC-2015
    01:20 PM
    SCPW-15-0000936
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
    LYMAN K. LABATTE, Petitioner,
    vs.
    THE HONORABLE LINDA LUKE, JUDGE OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
    FIRST CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent Judge,
    and
    STATE OF HAWAI#I and DUSTIN F.K. DAWSON, Respondents.
    ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
    (CASE NO. 1DCW-15-0000082)
    ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
    (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
    Upon consideration of Petitioner Lyman K. LaBatte’s
    petition for a writ of mandamus, filed on December 14, 2015, and
    the record, it appears that Petitioner is not a party to the
    underlying criminal proceeding and, under the circumstances of
    this case, lacks standing to seek relief therein.    See, e.g.,
    Akinaka v. Disciplinary Bd. of Haw. Sup. Ct., 91 Hawai#i 51, 58,
    
    979 P.2d 1077
    , 1084 (1999) (a complainant does not have standing
    to participate in the disciplinary process because “one does not
    have standing to assert a violation of rights belonging to
    another;” the complainant’s only function in the disciplinary
    process is to supply evidence of the alleged attorney
    malfeasance).    Even if Petitioner had standing, he fails to
    demonstrate that he is entitled to the requested writ of
    mandamus.    See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawai#i 200, 204-05, 
    982 P.2d 334
    , 338-39 (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; such a writ is meant to restrain a judge of an inferior
    court who has exceeded his or her 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 he or she has a legal duty to act).    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 for a
    writ of mandamus is denied.
    DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, December 21, 2015.
    /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
    /s/ Paula A. Nakayama
    /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
    /s/ Richard W. Pollack
    /s/ Michael D. Wilson
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: SCPW-15-0000936

Filed Date: 12/21/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 12/22/2015