Grindling v. Cardoza

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCPW-13-0000100 04-MAR-2013 09:24 AM SCPW-13-0000100 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI#I CHRIS GRINDLING, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE JOSEPH CARDOZA, JUDGE, SECOND CIRCUIT COURT, Respondent. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (S.P.P. No. 12-1-0007) ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, McKenna, and Pollack, JJ.) Upon consideration of petitioner Christopher Grindling s petition for a writ of mandamus, which was filed on February 19, 2013, and the record, it appears that petitioner fails to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief. See HRPP 40(f) and (i). Although petitioner is entitled to a timely ruling on his Rule 40 petition, he is not entitled to the mandamus relief requested at this time. 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). 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, March 4, 2013. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Simeon R. Acoba, Jr. /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack 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.