Walter v. Cardoza ( 2010 )

LAW LIBRA%'¢§\!
NO. 30489
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAF§§
r~f*'.
ROBERT W. WALTER, Petitioner,
VS.
new 2- was am
THE HONORABLE JOSEPH E. CARDOZA,VJUDGE OF THE CiB. IT
COURT OF THE SECOND CIRCUIT, STATE OF HAWAlT;
) d
EL“T ETH .§~
THOMAS WALTER; and RICHARD C. DRAYSON, Responde"is ‘°
ORIGlNAL PROCEEDING
(S.P. NO. 07-1-OO62(3))
ORDER
(By: Moon, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ. and
Circuit Judge Sakamoto, in place of Reckenwald, J. recused)
Upon consideration of petitioner Robert W. Walter’s
petition for a writ of mandamus and prohibition and the papers
in support and the supplement thereto, it appears that
petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right
to extraordinary relief.
See Kema v. Gaddis, 91 Hawafi 200,
204, 982 P.2d 334, 338 (l999) (A writ of mandamus and/or
prohibition 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 writs are not intended to supersede the legal
discretionary authority of the lower courts, nor are they
intended to serve as legal remedies in lieu of normal appellate
procedures. Where a court has discretion to act, mandamus will
not lie to interfere with or control the exercise of that
discretion, even when the judge has acted erroneously, unless
the judge has exceeded his or her jurisdiction, has committed a
flagrant and manifest abuse of discretion, or has refused to act
miami
on a subject properly before the court under circumstances in
which it has a legal duty to act.). Therefore,
lT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the petition for a writ of
mandamus and prohibition is denied.
DATED: Honolulu, HawaiTq June 3, 20l0.
WV’*‘“``
'1§>< ¢.a~,’_ ii ‘ ``
/@‘~”~M§
l €. ¢5\»60»1§»"*