Abordo v. Immediate Court of Appeals of the State of Hawaii ( 2015 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-15-0000033
02-FEB-2015
12:12 PM
SCPW-15-0000033
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
EDMUND M. ABORDO,
Petitioner,
vs.
INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I,
Respondent Court,
and
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY and SHARI KIMOTO,
MAINLAND BRANCH ADMINISTRATOR,
Respondents.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
(CAAP-13-0001474; CIV. NO. 11-1-2228)
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of Petitioner Edmund M. Abordo’s
document entitled “Plaintiff-Appellant’s Writ of Mandamus for
Violation of the Rules [of] the Court and the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution,” filed on January
20, 2015, and the record, it appears that Petitioner fails to
demonstrate that he has a clear and indisputable right to an
immediate decision in CAAP-13-0001474 and, therefore, mandamus
relief is not warranted. 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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the clerk of the appellate
court shall process the petition for a writ mandamus without
payment of the filing fee.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, February 2, 2015.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson
2