Scotto v. Hawaii Public Housing Authority ( 2014 )

Electronically Filed
Supreme Court
SCPW-14-0000887
18-JUN-2014
10:19 AM
SCPW-14-0000887
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I
LIVIA SCOTTO, Petitioner,
vs.
HAWAI#I PUBLIC HOUSING AUTHORITY, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Pollack, and Wilson, JJ.)
Upon consideration of the documents filed by Petitioner
Livia Scotto, on June 13, 2014, which we review as a petition for
a writ of mandamus, and the record, it appears that Petitioner
fails to demonstrate that she has a clear and indisputable right
to the requested relief, and she can raise her eviction-related
concerns before the Hawai#i Public Housing Authority’s eviction
board and in any subsequent judicial review process. See Haw.
Rev. Stat. §§ 356D-93, 356D-94, 356D-96, and 356D-97.
Petitioner, therefore, is not entitled to a writ of mandamus.
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);
Barnett v. Broderick, 84 Hawai#i 109, 111, 929 P.2d 1359, 1361
(1996) (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). Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, June 18, 2014.
/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald
/s/ Paula A. Nakayama
/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna
/s/ Richard W. Pollack
/s/ Michael D. Wilson