Barnett v. Frank
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
*** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** NO. 23891 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I GREGORY BARNETT, Appellant-Appellant vs. CLAYTON FRANK, in his official capacity as INSTITUTIONS DIVISION ADMINISTRATOR, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, STATE OF HAWAI#I, Appellee-Appellee APPEAL FROM THE FIRST CIRCUIT COURT (CIV. NO. 97-0202) (By: SUMMARY DISPOSITION ORDER Moon, C.J., Levinson, Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ.) Appellant-appellant Gregory Barnett (Barnett) appeals from the August 24, 2000 order of the circuit court of the first circuit, the Honorable Eden Elizabeth Hifo presiding, denying Barnett s motion for reconsideration of an order denying Hawai!i Rules of Civil Procedure (HRCP) Rule 60(b)(3) relief from a final judgment dismissing his appeal of a disciplinary decision of the Department of Public Safety (DPS) for lack of jurisdiction. On appeal, Barnett argues that the circuit court erred in (1) holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review DPS s disciplinary decision, (2) denying his motion for reconsideration of the circuit court s order dismissing his appeal, (3) denying his motion for relief under HRCP Rule 60(b), and (4) denying his motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion for relief under HRCP Rule 60(b). Upon carefully reviewing the record and the briefs submitted and having given due consideration to the issues raised and arguments advanced, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Barnett s motion for *** NOT FOR PUBLICATION *** reconsideration of the order denying his motion for relief from judgment, inasmuch as Barnett did not present new evidence or arguments that could not have been presented in his earlier motion for HRCP Rule 60(b) relief from judgment. See Amfac, Inc. v. Waikiki Beachcomber Inv. Co., 74 Haw. 85, 839 P.2d 10 (1992); see also Gossinger v. Association of Apartment Owners of Regency of Ala Wai, 73 Haw. 412, 835 P.2d 627 (1992). We, however, lack jurisdiction to review (1) the April 20, 2000 judgment, and (2) the June 6, 2000 order denying Barnett s motion for HRCP Rule 60(b) relief. See Hawai!i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 4(a)(1); First Trust Co. of Hilo v. Reinhardt, 3 Haw. App. 589, 655 P.2d 891 (1982); Wright , Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil 2d ยง 2871 at 424 (1995). Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the circuit court s August 24, 2000 order denying Barnett s motion for reconsideration of the order denying his motion for HRCP Rule 60(b) relief from judgment, from which the appeal is taken, is affirmed. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai#i, July 26, 2004. On the briefs: Gregory Barnett appellant-appellant pro se Lisa M. Itomura, Deputy Attorney General, for the appellee-appellee 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
